Did you know that “knowing” is definitely not half the battle? The G.I. Joe Fallacy is but one of the many provocative and counter-intuitive ideas I learned at this year’s Behavioral Summit. Organized by ideas42, a nonprofit behavioral science consultancy, the Summit included speakers from diverse disciplines including healthcare, sexual assault, risk, fundraising, systems analysis, happiness, diversity, financial inclusion and, of course, behavioral science. Seems any field that affects humans can be understood and perhaps advanced with the help of behavioral science. Here is a selective rundown of the most interesting things I learned there.
According to Robert Cialdini, behavioral science can appeal to and bridge the chasm between left and right in America. The left values nudges as additional tools for government intervention in the public interest. The right appreciates that nudges don’t require laws, regulations and constraints on liberty.
Mr. Cialdini also suggests that to get things done in a world where identity is more important than self-interest, we need to align our message (and nudge) to the “tribe” we are hoping to influence. To change behaviors, we can use social norms by exemplifying a member of the tribe who is behaving as desired. For example, find an anti-carbon tax Democrat, to show that having such a view is feasible. Even better is if this Democrat has changed her mind based on new information, she then becomes a more persuasive “convert communicator”. We must also recognize that the bigger the mistake our target audience has made, the harder it will be for them to change their minds. So, best to avoid finger-wagging and help them save face by suggesting “you couldn’t have known.”
Betsy Levy Paluck blew up some intuitive, widely held beliefs about the perpetrators of sexual assault. (I was particularly interested in this topic because I have family and friends who have been directly affected.) According to Ms. Paluck, it is not the case that most rapes are perpetrated by repeat offenders because of their personal, sociopathic qualities. The theory persists because it’s simple, appealing and supports the reassuring belief that most people are good. Of course, the reality isn’t so simple. She says the evidence better supports the “behavioral model” in which our actions are a function of both self-perceptions and perceived norms. Men who see themselves “undeservedly low in power”, in a context of certain stereotypes, morals and goals, may behave sociopathically. An interesting and effective intervention was students handing out a definition of assaultat the door to a party.
Sendhil Mullainathan delivered a thought-provoking exposition of a “slow hunch” he’s developing regarding slowing our automatic responses. He discussed Chicago’s Becoming a Man program, which works with at-risk, inner-city boys. This surprisingly effective program has activities that work to lengthen the time between stimulus and response. It is based on the insight that many tragic acts of violence occur as the result of split-second decisions. If we can create a delay between stimulus and response, then perhaps we make space for more mindful and rational decision-making. (I personally have found mindfulness and meditation practice helpful in this way.) Mr. Mullainathan worries that ubiquitous technology can get in the way of self-reflection and even influence harmful behaviors (“sludge”). On the other hand, technology can highlight our blind spots. For example, one’s browser history can yield all sorts of insights about the rabbit holes we go down.
A fascinating panel on encouraging prosocial behaviors for our own good offered these observations:
- Ashley Whillans: studies suggest giving is good for the mood and health of the giver and rewards for others are more motivating than rewards for the subject themselves.
- Andrew Glantz: his app, GiftAMeal, allows diners to take and share photos of their food, which results in a free (different) meal for the needy. His users spend more, tip more and go to participating restaurants more.
- Charlotte Blank: she finds that customers will refer more friends to a website that offers an incentive, provided the friends also get an incentive.
While giving is good for our health and happiness, Laurie Santos expanded on “The Science of Well-Being”, an extremely popular undergraduate course she teaches at Princeton and on Coursera. Her top five insights include:
- You can’t rely on your intuition about what will make you happy. We overestimate how happy money will make us and underestimate the value of being social;
- We need to make more time for social connections (introverts, too…. Noted!);
- Helping others make us happier than we expect it to;
- We should strive to be more in the present moment. (We spend 46.9% of our time with our mind wandering). Take time to savor and to meditate; and
- Make time daily for gratitude, for example, by journaling about the three to five things that make us happy.
Finally, in the Solving for Diversity panel, I learned from Rory Gerberg that diversity training will be effective only if the threat to white males is replaced with “productive discomfort” at the gap between current and desired future state. Siri Chilazi advised that such training should not be about changing individuals themselves, but rather changing the environment and processes of the organization. For example, make hiring and promotion decisions all at once, not sequentially, and avoid gendered language. Frank Dobbin recommends making training voluntary because it will backfire if it’s mandatory. Frame the training as making employees better managers and get employees to co-design diversity initiatives. Sherry Hakimi of GenEquality shared some subtle and pleasing examples of “digital nudge art”.
In addition to the relevant and informative content, the organizers experimented (again) on the participants: The nudge pictured below more than doubled participants’ usage of the stairs:
Nudge to use the stairs at the 2018 Behavioral Summit. PHOTO BY BRETT WHYSEL
In sum, the Behavioral Summit highlighted what I love about behavioral science: it’s provocative, counterintuitive, practical, and, at its best, focused on improving happiness and well-being. It’s about the importance of context and the process of decision-making, as much as the qualities of the individual decision-maker. It also reflected my criticism of the discipline: there was little discussion of the ethics of nudging. Indeed one panelist seemed to suggest exaggerating social proof to make a nudge more effective. That said, I left with new information to share with my students, include in my business and to improve my life.
This article originally appeared on November 13, 2018 on Forbes.com.