Ever since the release of the revolutionary book ‘Nudge’ authored by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, terms like nudges, choice architecture and behaviourally-induced governance have been used extensively in policy debates. Many countries across the world have integrated principles of behavioural economics into their public policy systems. Increasing the percentage of organ donors, ensuring tax compliance and increasing the low pensions savings rate among private-sector workers are just a few sweet mangoes in an entire orchard of success stories wherein nudges have proved their efficiency and have thereby announced their presence loud enough for every policymaker to take note of.
But, how do we know what the appropriate level of nudging is? In other words, are there limits to nudging?
I have been grappling with this question ever since the Government of India rolled out an initiative early in March this year to spread awareness of COVID-19. It had requested all telecom firms to create a short audio clip as a caller tune to highlight the dangers and precautions to be adopted to stay safe and mitigate the spread of the virus. It included guidelines like that of washing hands regularly, wearing a mask and maintaining social distancing. In just a few days, Twitter started blaring and this tune (rather, announcement) faced serious backlash. Seems like people weren’t very pleased with the sudden intrusion in their lives.
In hindsight, this seems like a brilliant move to educate and warn citizens about the pandemic. Then, why the backlash? Let’s turn to behavioural economics now to assess what exactly went wrong.
Any nudge is carried out with a view to mildly direct people towards the desired action. It is also done to enhance the salience of any pressing issue at hand which, in this case, is the threat to one’s health due to the coronavirus. Initially, the coronavirus caller tune was received well as it triumphed in its objective. Soon, people grew tired of this nudge; so much so that workarounds were discovered to deactivate this annoying message.
Too much salience becomes repetitive and we people detest repetition. We dislike taking orders. When we are told what to do multiple times, the feeling of annoyance or irritation takes over. Psychologists have a formal term for this: psychological reactance, which is the brain’s response when restrictions are imposed on our freedom to choose. Constantly being told to wash our hands and put on face masks creates a restriction on how we choose to live and the impulsive reaction is of annoyance and outrage.
Further, nudges have a condescending undertone to themselves which may not be accepted. Nudges are often conceived to push people towards desirable behaviours and rely on mental models that directly point out people’s mistakes. So, a nudge usually says, “Okay human, you’ve been doing this wrong the entire time. You need my help, so I’ll show you just how things are done.”
Nudges may provide the necessary information and awareness, but, the follow-up might be a problem. How many of us actually take the pains to wash our hands with soap for 20 whole seconds after listening to the caller tune while making a phone call? Not many.
Nudges are very complicated; it’s very difficult to get them ‘just perfect’. Nudge too much, and it may backfire as aforementioned; nudge too little and it may fail to generate the desired result.
How do we find the equilibrium level or intensity of a nudge? The answer is simple - reduce their magnitude! We have been exposed to guidelines everywhere we look: Television advertisements, news channels and social media platforms. Social media and news apps are cluttered with colourful infographics and posters that provide the same guidelines as the caller tune but these nudges are much more attractive. An online experiment conducted by the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), UK found that vivid infographics and a minimalist design render such posters much effective. Many studies also suggest that visual learning is better, faster and more appealing than auditory learning so, why not make visual nudges more salient!
Another way this equilibrium level of nudging can be attained is simply by conducting small scale trials. Instead of requesting all major telecom giants like Airtel, Idea, Jio and others to create this caller tune all at once, maybe a trial could’ve been conducted with one service provider and a small target group first. Then, based on the results of the trial, this intervention could’ve been taken to the next step. This might be slightly time-consuming but still offers a way forward based on trial and error. This way, the serious backlash could’ve been avoided.
I believe that with the addition of this caller tune, we have been taken further than our saturation point and are faced with an information overload. In fact, as I write this article, the government has made changes to the caller tune: the initial cough has been removed and the guidelines have been reduced but I believe that any caller tune, even if it provides the smallest guideline, is redundant.
Akshaya Balaji
