It’s Not What You Say, It’s How You Say It

Abhiraami Atputhananthan

All over the world, the Novel Coronavirus has left government policy makers and health ministers racking their brains. The ‘invisible’ nature of the virus has proven hard to tackle, so much so that It has grown to affect almost every one of us in some way or another. To instil hope or fear? Freedom or blanket safety? Needless to say, policy makers have a lot to think about, with the success of any approach reliant on solving one totally perplexing puzzle- human behaviour.

Nudge theory is the concept of employing subtle changes in the environment in order to influence people’s choices. The beauty of nudge policies is that they can make people follow government guidelines without even realising it. In the context of Covid-19, nudge theory has taken the form of stickers on supermarket floors which indicate which way to walk and where to stand. And so, without giving much thought at all, most people adhere to government guidelines and stay ‘socially distant’. Similarly, the use of regular reminders to hand wash and ‘social distance’ through Downing Street briefings and unavoidable posters in shop windows comes under the use of nudge theory to tackle Covid-19.

The issue with nudge policies is that they act as mere ‘suggestions’ and people remain at liberty to go against them without any repercussions. In early March, many of us may have pretended the situation was normal, despite evidence suggesting that there was reason to be more careful. Known as ‘normalcy bias’, this false sense of security that people adopted meant only around 50% of people in the UK avoided social events and only 36% avoided public transport.

On the 23^rd of March, the UK was put into lockdown. As we all remember, the beginning of the lockdown was rocky, with only part of the population adhering to government guidelines. ‘Loss aversion bias’ is a behavioural economics phenomenon which explains how human beings attach more intensity to losing a fixed quantity than gaining it. For instance, would you feel that the cost of losing £100 was equal to the benefit of gaining £100? Probably not. In the same way, people were reluctant to follow guidelines initially due to the feeling of losing their freedom.

The early lockdown days are also infamous for the panic buying fever (pun intended!) that seemed to take over our nation. The human perception of risk is driven by lack of control. The lack of certainty in the early lockdown days meant certain individuals stocked up on food and, my favourite, toilet roll, in the hope of being sure that they would have a secure stock of these items. Over time, other consumers began to adopt this behaviour as well. Before we knew it, supermarket aisles were swept clean and many people were left without essential items. This collective behaviour of individuals as a group is referred to as ‘herd behaviour’ by economists.  The herd effect is damaging because it means governments may lose the ability to have centralised control over the nation’s habits, since consumers end up ‘following the crowd’ as opposed to only government advice.

Looking forward, as the UK eases out of lockdown, it is now more essential than ever that people stay ‘socially distant’ and prevent a second wave. The phrase ‘social distancing’ itself is increasingly being associated with the loss of our freedom. As mentioned above, a lot of people may bypass this advice as a result of ‘loss aversion bias’. A psychologist at Stanford University suggests that simply changing the phrase to ‘physical distancing’ or ‘distant socialising’ will avoid such bias.  This is because they remove the notion of losing time with loved ones from the phrase and emphasise that people can still socialise (through virtual means).

‘Framing effects’ are significant in determining whether people follow advice or not. For example, ‘loss aversion bias’ means that people are more likely to listen to advice if they believe it will ‘prevent people from losing their lives’ rather than ‘keep people healthy’. Providing official sources of information and regular updates is also essential in preventing the spread of fake news and ensuring people are neither too hopeful nor too afraid. Hence, behavioural economics is at the heart of many steps taken against Covid-19. Without a doubt, this pandemic will stay in people’s minds for decades. The more insight we have into behavioural economics, the better informed our actions will be, shaping how this time will be remembered in years to come.