COVID-19 and the Social Nudge

“Keep your distance,” “don’t touch your face,” “wash your hands when entering and leaving a place,” “don’t share your work supplies,” “use hand sanitizer,” “don’t touch, don’t touch” … These are the new rules to follow when leaving home.

Researchers have questioned the effectiveness of using certain “nudges” or even legal requirements to change attitudes or behaviors related to COVID-19.

After nearly a year of living with COVID-19, numerous government awareness campaigns have sought to ensure compliance with recommended health protocols: reducing capacity in public spaces, and the general availability (and shortages) of masks and hand sanitizer. However, part of the authorities“ struggle to ”raise awareness” about the virus stems from a lack of reflection on two concepts whose meanings are easily confused: “conciencia” and “consciencia.”.

Conscience refers to “the knowledge of right and wrong that enables us to make moral judgments about reality and our actions.” At this point, we all know that not wearing a mask is wrong and that maintaining social distance is right, for example.

Let’s take it a step further, then. Let’s talk about consciousness. This concept refers to “the ability to recognize the surrounding reality and relate to it.” It goes beyond the moral distinction between good and evil; it has more to do with our relationship with our environment.

Thus, even if we are aware of this and know how to behave, we may still act unconsciously.

Indeed, in 2008, with these concepts in mind, authors Thaler and Sunstein established the “nudge theory” (the former would go on to win the Nobel Prize in Economics years later), which, given the current situation, can serve as a framework for defining effective ways to implement public health safety protocols. But first, let’s look at what a “nudge” is.

Social science studies have shown that, in many situations, we make bad decisions—unconsciously. We often find ourselves in moments when we cannot think carefully about every choice we make, and therefore resort to forms of rapid thinking that sometimes lead us astray.

To help us overcome these cognitive limitations, Richard Thaler and Cass Sustein propose the “nudge theory.” It involves “small nudges” aimed at modifying people’s behavior in a predictable way, without eliminating any alternatives or affecting free will, simply by changing the way possible options are presented when a decision is being made.

For example, most people automatically choose the “default” option (which is what happens when we click “Accept” during a software’s default installation), so the strategy involves changing the way the choice is presented in order to influence—subconsciously—people’s behavior in a positive way, without making it mandatory. These are, therefore, voluntary initiatives that aim to guide people in directions that will improve their lives.

In the case of diseases that are transmitted through universal and common behaviors—as is precisely the case with COVID-19—the most obvious response seems to be quarantining or isolating those who are infected in order to prevent them from spreading the disease to others. This solution, rather than a “nudge,” is in fact a restriction on individual freedoms, justified on the grounds of safeguarding public health.

In both cases, however, it may be necessary—and more efficient—for authorities to use behavioral science techniques to try to understand how we can guide the public to make the right decisions, or to dissuade them from making the wrong ones. For example, if we consider the measures adopted by the government—such as social distancing and handwashing before entering public spaces—has this approach always worked? Definitely not in every case. Even quarantine restrictions are regularly flouted by some people. But why?

First, each person has their own “rationality” and set of attitudes toward illness; and these attitudes are inevitably shaped by a certain mindset. One of the most common behavioral biases is the belief that bad things “only happen to others, not to me”—a bias that becomes much more evident in the case of new diseases. For its part, one of the premises of behavioral science is the “availability heuristic,” which suggests that we misjudge risks based on how easily we can imagine a scenario, and it is difficult to imagine ourselves in a situation where we are contracting a disease we have never seen before.

Second, people in general are social beings who live in social environments. There are no behaviors more difficult to change than those of this nature. As social beings, we seek interaction with others; in fact, we need it. According to various studies, the forms and rituals of that interaction are the result of prolonged conditioning. Welcome rituals include handshakes, kissing each other on the cheeks, bowing, or saying certain phrases. These gestures are automatic. Not doing them seems strange—this is the definition of a habit for a behavioral scientist.

Unfortunately, these habits—particularly those involving physical contact—serve as vectors for the spread of viral pathogens such as the novel COVID-19. So, how can we change these behaviors?

Cass Sustein argues that, to be effective, communication campaigns and messages must follow the EAST framework (developed by the Behavioral Insights Team (BIT)). This framework emphasizes the importance of (i) Easy—messages and nudges must be simple; (ii) Attractive—messages must capture the recipient’s attention; (iii) Social—they must highlight existing social norms that promote the desired behavior; and (iv) Timely—messages must be delivered at the right time, ideally when the person is most likely to change their behavior.

In the context of a pandemic, where people are already stressed and bored enough, it’s important to add the letter F to this framework and turn it into ‘FEAST.’ The ‘F’ stands for adding ‘fun’ to the formula. Messages or small changes that inject fun into daily life can help make measures like physical distancing more sustainable over time. The New Zealand government introduced this new element during Easter, adding fun to the public narrative by declaring the Easter Bunny an ‘essential worker’ and encouraging families to continue the celebration at home. The “fun theory” has been applied in various interventions aimed at changing behavior. It is important to note that one of the greatest challenges of this type of strategy is maintaining high levels of “fun and surprise” over time, which is key to the sustainability of behavioral change.