Addressing the biggest challenges like global warming, political corruption, and a broken economic system will entail significant amounts of large-scale behavior change. As Change Makers we will have to learn the basics of the cognitive and behavioral sciences in order to design campaigns that result in significant changes in social norms, community priorities, and personal behaviors.
I believe it is finally possible to intentionally design campaigns that result in significant behavioral change. Here are five things I’ve discovered that lead me to this conclusion:
#1: We now know we were wrong about human nature.
Throughout most of the 20th Century, research into the foundations of human nature was dominated by a series of what philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn called “scientific revolutions”. Every decade or so a new theory would arise that pulled the foundations out from under the one that came before it.
- In the early 20th Century, focus was on behaviorism with the assumption that it wasn’t possible to measure aspects of subjective experience.
- This was challenged by the work of Sigmund Freud when he demonstrated that influences from subconscious experience could be measured (and were quite significant).
- Later came the “cognitivist” period dominated by formal arguments about the “abstract logic” of human thought.
- This was challenged by studies into the emotional influences of intention and belief for altering behavior throughout the latter part of the century.
The dominant theory that persisted throughout this entire period has been the Theory of Rational Action that claims human beings are abstract symbol manipulators (much like a calculator or computing machine) that seek to maximize their self-interest. This theory laid the foundation for most of the major institutions of society today, from stock markets to government agencies.
And we now know that this theory of human nature is wrong. The first step to bringing about large-scale behavior change is finding the errors in our ways from past efforts that didn’t work.
#2: We now know how REAL human nature works.
While many puzzle pieces are still missing, scientists have pieced together enough of the picture to know that human beings are embodied creatures. This means we work the way we do because of the kinds of brains we have, the kinds of bodies we have, and the typical experiences that pervade our evolutionary history.
The basic picture is that human nature is:
- Profoundly moral: Our behavior is shaped by value judgments, deeply held beliefs, and assertions about right and wrong;
- Profoundly social: We are influenced by the behavior of those around us through shared stories, common expectations, and the need for cooperation (and competition);
- Deeply emotional: Contrary to past assumptions, we reason with our emotions. Just imagine trying to ask someone out on a date without those important emotional cues about alertness, enthusiasm, and appeal;
- Rational in context: Decisions are made via context-based logic determined by how we understand the situations we find ourselves in;
- Informed by the interplay of body, brain, and environment: All of these factors arise at the junction of bodily experience in the world where we interpret, plan, and act.
#3: It all comes down to good design.
Attempts to change human behavior will depend on knowledge like this. We have to design new modes of interaction (such as social media platforms like facebook and MySpace), better structures in the built environment (to change the patterns of experience), and more human-oriented organizational forms (that take REAL human nature into account).
With positive knowledge both about where we went wrong in the past and what we now know that is right, we can engage in system design to promote socially desirable outcomes like reductions in environmental impacts and greater sensitivities to the needs of others.
#4: This includes how motivation works.
One of the most important areas to consider good design is in the incentive structures that drive much of human behavior. The assumption that humans are self-interest maximizers has led to many pay-for-work models that reward selfishness and greed in order to rise up the ladder. This theory has been deeply critiqued and challenged by studies into human creativity, as seen in this overview by Daniel Pink.
The key to behavioral change is understanding how motivation works in different environments. Then one needs to observe how people are using the environments they find themselves in now. The combination of these two knowledge sources will provide insights into how new environments should be designed.
#5: It’s been done before (many times).
History is filled with examples of Change Makers successfully driving large-scale behavioral change. Guided by contemporary insights we can dissect past success stories and cultivate systematic methods for designed change. A few case studies that might be particularly enlightening are:
- The first televised Presidential debate and its impact on voting behavior;
- Inspirational social movements like the Civil Rights Movement or events that led to the creation of the Endangered Species Act;
- Transformational events like the terrorist attacks of September 11th and the bombing of Pearl Harbor;
- The rise of public relations and modern advertising.
This small sampling, if properly analyzed, can be exceedingly insightful. I often share some preliminary results of my analysis for these and other related topics in the workshops I’ve given on how to design for social change.
So, in conclusion, I believe it is finally possible to design campaigns for changing large-scale human behavior because of the solid foundations we now have from the cognitive and behavioral sciences. I will share more of the practical implications of this knowledge in future works — and continue developing the tools necessary to put it to work for NGOs, education and research institutions, government agencies, and socially-conscious businesses in the days ahead.
Hi Joe – Great post! And I look forward to your future posts on the tools… I may converse with you on this thinking here and through my blog as well.
Also, thought I would point to some research you might be interested in. Sabine Pahl’s lecture on the Psychology of Climate change. There are some good principles here to consider when designing tools, I think:
Title: The Psychology of Climate Change
Speaker: Dr. Sabine Pahl, Lecturer in Psychology, University of Plymouth, UK
http://www.pics.uvic.ca/broadcast.php#past
Hi Heather,
Thanks for sharing the link. My foray into the cognitive and behavioral sciences arose from my graduates studies in atmospheric physics, so I’m well versed in the behavior change arena for climate.
If you haven’t checked it out yet, take a look at the wealth of articles I’ve written on cognitive applications to environmental issues at one of my companies, Cognitive Policy Works:
http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com
Looking forward to future conversations!
Joe
Joe:
I don’t disagree with you here. However… I think you are more ideal (meaning less cynical) than I am in regard to humanity’s chances for survival over the next 100 Earth years. Humans are clever and creative and imaginative, but their intelligence seems intrinsically flawed from the remnants of baboony eeego anchored to the reptilian brain. Humans, individually and collectively, seem to lack common sense and wisdom. Prescience. I’m not sure humans have enough time to recognize, deconstruct and separate their flaws from their basic animal-human nature. Hell! Most of the consumer baboonies can’t see beyond the bizarre and insane DOCTRINE OF PERPETUAL GROWTH of the human population and global consumer economy in a closed looped system: the Earth.
Two words describe my current feelings of humanity: disappointment and embarrassment. If it’s any consolation… I am happy that you are doing what you are doing. Congratulations! I am a ‘Coyote-man’ that lives 200 years beyond the current $ocio/political paradigm. I don’t give praise that often.
R.R.R.
Hello R.R.R.,
I share your concerns that humanity may be unable to recognize and respond appropriately to systemic threats. The strongest and most persuasive argument I’ve heard on this subject was made by William Rees (one of the creators of the ecological footprint metric). He is an ecologist and evolutionary biologist who studies predator-prey relationships.
William’s argument is that humans exhibit a particular predator-prey relationship known in the literature as a “K Strategist” that is characterized by high adaptability across diverse niches, being at or near the top of the food chain, and having exponential growth in population size. The K Strategists all go through major collapse cycles as they consume all available resources in their niche, then adapt to another one and repeat. This continues until they reduce the resilience of their ecosystems they depend on, which drives their populations into rapid decline and collapse.
The question he urges all of us to ask ourselves is whether humans can evolve our political and economic culture beyond this biologically driven pattern. He is pessimistic. For my part, I remain optimistic with a healthy dose of skepticism and caution because I am fully aware of the threats we must overcome in the next few decades.
A very important discussion!