1 / 57

Behaviour Change: What role do we want governments to play? An international comparison

Behaviour Change: What role do we want governments to play? An international comparison. Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute. A very brief introduction to behaviour change. A move away from classical models…. 3. Very much flavour of the month in the UK.

xuan
Download Presentation

Behaviour Change: What role do we want governments to play? An international comparison

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Behaviour Change: What role do we want governments to play? An international comparison Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute

  2. A very brief introduction to behaviour change

  3. A move away from classical models… 3

  4. Very much flavour of the month in the UK with so many models available, even experienced researchers find it hard to know which one to choose (GSR, 2008) 4

  5. UK government very keen on these ideas… • intended as a checklist for policymakers of the most important influences on behaviour • the list is a mixture of... • modes of delivery (e.g., messenger) • stimulus attributes (e.g., salience) • characteristics of the recipient (e.g. ego) • policy strategies (e.g., defaults) • mechanisms of action (e.g. priming) • and related psychological constructs (e.g., affect). 5

  6. “If a man sees a fly, he aims at it” 6

  7. It’s about what we can do to influence behaviour Any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way Thaler & Sunstein, Nudge

  8. A couple of current examples… ‘Required choice’ for organ donation DESIGN FEATURES – DEFAULTS London borough’s Direct Debit prize draw INCENTIVES

  9. Combining interventions 9

  10. But we know that nudges alone are not enough…

  11. How do attitudes towards behaviour change policies vary around the globe?

  12. What people say and how they act is different but… A measure which does not have public support is, in general, less likely to succeed House of Lords reporton Behaviour Change

  13. What we did

  14. We asked people in 24 countries… Britain Belgium Poland Sweden Germany Hungary France Russia Canada Spain Italy USA Japan China South Korea Mexico Indonesia India Saudi Arabia Turkey • Key: Brazil Australia 1,000 interviews South Africa Argentina 500 interviews

  15. …about their support for different degrees of government intervention in these areas: FOOD RETIREMENT ENVIRONMENT SMOKING

  16. We looked at four degrees of Government intervention – and also asked about interventions against business INFORMATION FORCE OF INTERVENTION Provide information about changing behaviour INCENTIVES Provide incentives to change behaviour RESTRICTIONS Make behaviour more expensive or difficult BAN OUTRIGHT Ban behaviour COMPANIES Make companies act to change behaviour

  17. Limitations of the data • As such, for developing nations the results are not representative of the country as a whole • Internet penetration by no means uniform • Results must be seen in this context • There may be bias in some countries where Internet is not felt to be private • Ecological data • Definitions will be different Global @dvisor is conducted through an internet surveyin 24 countries

  18. Our findings

  19. …perhaps surprisingly, there is majority support for intervention across the board… What, if anything, do you think government should do? (Average over all four policy areas) Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor FORCE OF INTERVENTION Provide information Provide incentives Make behaviour more expensive/ difficult Ban behaviour Make companies act against behaviour

  20. But people support different degrees of intervention in different policy areas…

  21. People want financial incentives to save for their pension, and 7 in 10 support being forced to save Next, thinking about how people plan for retirement. What, if anything, do you think government should do? Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor Provide information Provide incentives Make pension scheme enrolment automatic Make pension scheme enrolment mandatory Make employers contribute to pension schemes

  22. Smoking: still low support for an outright ban, but banning in public places is largely accepted Now thinking about smoking: What, if anything, do you think government should do? Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor Provide information Incentivise people to stop smoking Ban smoking in public places Ban smoking altogether Make tobacco companies invest against smoking

  23. There are exceptions to the hierarchy of public support Firstly, thinking about what people choose to eat. What, if anything, do you think government should do? Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor Provide information about healthy eating Provide incentives, such as health food vouchers Make unhealthy foods more expensive Ban unhealthy foods Make companies promote healthy choices

  24. Similar story around environmental interventions Now thinking about using the planet's resources in a sustainable way (i.e. in a way that protects the quality of life of future generations). What, if anything, do you think government should do? Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor Provide information Make sustainable options less expensive Make unsustainable products more expensive Ban unsustainable products Make companies be more sustainable

  25. But we also gave people the opportunity to say whether the government should not get involved in their behaviour…

  26. Half still have a negative gut reaction to the“nanny state” What, if anything, do you think government should do? (Average over all four policy areas) Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor Not get involved in what people choose to eat Not get involved in what people choose to save for retirement Not get involved in whether or not people choose to live sustainably Not get involved in how people make decisions about smoking Not get involved (average)

  27. Inconsistent views or a question of framing? • 53% agreed that “government should not get involved in what people choose to save for retirement” • 69% agreed that “government should change the law so that everyone has to enrol in a pension scheme” • 36%

  28. Support for the five degrees of intervention varies in different ways between countries

  29. Support for information is uniformly high(range = 16pp) Government should provide information… (Average over all four policy areas) Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor INFORMATION

  30. Incentive schemes reveal slightly wider differences (range = 22pp) Government should provide incentives… (Average over all four policy areas) Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor INCENTIVES

  31. Partially-restrictive legislation is much more divisive (range = 42pp) Government should make it more expensive/more difficult… (Average over all four policy areas) Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor RESTRICTIONS

  32. Support for outright prohibition shows the full extent of political diversity (range = 54pp) Government should ban… (Average over all four policy areas) Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor BAN OUTRIGHT

  33. Broad support for government intervention in business but price trade off not explored Government should make companies… (Average over all four policy areas) Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor COMPANIES

  34. Specific questions really emphasise the difference between countries

  35. Cultural divide? The right to eat what I want(range = 68pp) Government should introduce laws to ban unhealthy foods Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor OUTRIGHT BAN

  36. Now let’s investigate the patterns between countries…

  37. Countries do not differentiate in a nuanced way between shoves: if you like one type of legislation then you’ll like another

  38. Strong correlation between support for banning and restricting What, if anything, do you think government should do? (Average over all four policy areas) Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor Strongly support/tend to support policy PATERNALISM BAN OUTRIGHT LIBERALISM R² = 0.9357 RESTRICTIONS

  39. But by comparing other interventions we can observe more subtle characteristics…

  40. Subtle differences between nations emerge: authoritarians and incentivisers Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor Tend to support/strongly support for food and smoking (average) BANNING OVER INCENTIVES BAN OUTRIGHT INCENTIVES OVER BANNING R2 = 0.50 INCENTIVES

  41. And comparing support for strong legislation against business and strong legislation against society as a whole…

  42. France & Turkey relatively hard on business, Far East Asian democracies relatively liberal Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor Tend to support/strongly support strong intervention in food and smoking (average) COMPANIES R2 = 0.60 BAN OUTRIGHT

  43. But along with cultural differences, could prevalence of behaviour contribute to this variation?

  44. Prevalence of obesity does not appear a factor in the case of food Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor; International Obesity Taskforce Government should introduce laws to ban unhealthy foods OUTRIGHT BAN R2 = 0.60 STRONGLY SUPPORT/TEND TO SUPPORT % ADULTS WITH BMI ≥ 30

  45. Prevalence of smoking appears to strengthen opinion – the power of nicotine Government should introduce laws to ban…? Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor; WHO World Health Statistics 2010 OUTRIGHT BAN STRONGLY SUPPORT/TEND TO SUPPORT % ADULT POPULATION SMOKING

  46. Is wealth a factor?

  47. The wealthier the country the more likely they are to want to leave companies alone The government should make companies... (Average over all four policy areas) Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor; International Monetary Fund 2010 COMPANIES R2 = 0.66 STRONGLY SUPPORT/TEND TO SUPPORT GDP PER CAPITA (PPP) (CURRENT INT'L $)

  48. The wealthier the nation the less likely they are to favour government intervention The government should make the behaviour more difficult/more expensive. (Average over all four policy areas) Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor; International Monetary Fund 2010 RESTRICTIONS R2 = 0.70 STRONGLY SUPPORT/TEND TO SUPPORT GDP PER CAPITA (PPP) (CURRENT INT'L $)

  49. A wealth paradox High earners are more supportive of legislation than low earners RESTRICTIONS

  50. Might other factors explain these patterns?

More Related