Decision-making & Analytics
. USING BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE EFFECTIVELY
Blame game Have we been nudged in the wrong direction? T he notion that one person, however small, can change the world is a powerful one. It was captured a collective goal is laudable one. But has it been misappropriated by governments, multinational corporations, and lobbyists to blame individuals for systemic problems? The slogan, “Guns don’t kill
become associated with this kind of individual framing that is very helpful for organisations who like the system as it is and don’t want change.” Take carbon emissions. BP spent hundreds of millions of pounds on a vast media campaign, urging individuals to track their carbon footprint using a personal calculator it created. The idea of ‘personal carbon footprints’ quickly won support from governments, the media, and even environmental campaigners. But are they really a tool to save the planet? Or an attempt by fossil fuel companies to sidestep responsibility for global warming by blaming individuals for a lack of restraint? And what about plastic pollution? Are our hillsides and oceans awash with plastic because individuals have become increasingly careless about how we dispose of litter, ignoring all the messages encouraging us to recycle our waste?
beautifully by Dr Seuss in the children’s story Horton Hears A Who! As a tiny civilisation on a dust speck struggles to prove its existence to avoid annihilation, it is the voice of one small child which, when added to the rest, finally makes them heard. That sentiment has been echoed by numerous political leaders. As John F. Kennedy supposedly said: “One person can make a difference, and everyone should try.” It’s inspiring stuff, but as a strategy for addressing the wicked problems we face as a society – such as climate change and the obesity epidemic – it is sadly lacking. This raises a difficult question for behavioural scientists. The aim of nudging individuals to make positive changes to help us achieve
people, people kill people”, used by the US National Rifle Association to resist tighter gun laws in the US, is an extreme example. The implication is clear: there is no need to reduce gun sales because dangerous individuals are the problem, not the firearms industry. “This tactic of blaming the individual, rather than the system, is remarkably widespread,” says Nick Chater, Professor of Behavioural Science at WBS. “This is alarming for those of us in the behavioural sciences who approach social and political problems from the individual perspective. “We set out to make the world a better place by helping people with problems to live better lives, but we have inadvertently
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog