Money is not everything in employment
4. April 2023
No Comments
Menu
Behavioural science is given a bad name by mentalists and magicians who are convinced of its ability to change the world with simple solutions.
I've been debating for a long time whether to write something about it, what the use of behavioural science actually means in practice. I finally decided to do this after a discussion with a colleague about an unnamed acquaintance who was eager to apply behavioral intervention regardless of the topic and his previous experience.
Hoci má v tejto oblasti veľmi málo vedomostí, je presvedčený, že behaviorálnu intervenciu zvládne jednoducho “od stola”. Vzápätí na to ma nepríjemne prekvapí automatické predlžovanie zmluvy u poskytovateľa internetu, avšak za nevýhodných podmienok. Myslím, že motivácie k napísaniu tohto blogu mám dostatok.
I am currently observing a global trend in the rise of behavioral experts and economists who, after reading a few books, mostly popular instead of professional, consider themselves experts and experts on a particular topic (this is not just an example of behavioral science). Worse yet, they often follow their belief that they are able to change people's behaviour and take over the world in the way they imagine, or their principal or employer imagines. If that were really the case, we would all have been living healthier lives, going to the gym regularly, meeting deadlines, and doing things very differently in general for a long time.
This series of blogs will discuss how behavioral science can be effectively applied in a variety of fields and why it is important to understand the subject more deeply, rather than simplifying it. We will also discuss why behavioural science tools should not be used indiscriminately and expect that if it worked in one case, it must work in the other. We will also focus on how to properly understand behavioral science and its relevance in the real world.
I would divide the experts I mentioned above into two categories:
What unites them is their one-size-fits-all approach. They assume that gender, education, age and other socio-economic indicators do not divide people into groups and therefore may not be treated individually and do not foresee that this may have a completely opposite, negative effect (e.g. future disinterest or even resistance of individuals).
Používajú slovíčko “nudge” alebo pošťuchnutie a často majú cards with behavioural biases. They like to brainstorm and send letters or SMS messages. Theirs results are often short-term and focused on one-off interventions, which show quite interesting percentage differences. However, they are rapidly changing areas of application as these percentages are rapidly decreasing in other applications.
It is uncertain whether they realise that the more they present certain interventions (e.g. sending letters) to the public, the less lasting their effect will be. To znamená, že čím viac listov pošlú a viac o tom hovoria, tým menej na to ľudia budú reagovať. V tomto prípade platí “less is sometimes more.”
If the use of behavioural science is not properly controlled and applied, it can have a number of negative consequences, such as:
Overall, it is important to note that the use of behavioural science must be ethical, transparent and respect the autonomy and freedom of individuals. If used unscrupulously and manipulatively, the findings of behavioural science can have a negative impact on people's psychological and emotional well-being, undermining trust in institutions and society as a whole.
This alludes to one of the most important things in the use of behavioural science , which is trust. If people realise that someone wants to influence them, they may resist it and no longer want to participate in the process. On the contrary, if we try to understand people and do not want to force them, but actually improve their lives, we build a relationship and trust with them. And it is only through trust that we can build long-term cooperation. Let the mentalists and magicians stay in the movies and soap operas rather than have to set up the workings of society. This is true not only in the public sector, but also in the private sector. Whether it is a citizen or a customer, this is not how long-term strategies should be set.
I have to admit that I encounter this all too often. But can we blame them? It's hard to say. In this day and age, when results are demanded instantly and everyone is trying to find the shortest route, this is understandable. And at the same time, almost all deductions are set on an annual basis or on some short cycle (I'm not just talking about the public sector here). On the other hand, systematic work is not as immediate and attractive as antibiotics that work quickly, steroids that make us instantly stronger, or pills that immediately relieve pain. What do these examples have in common? I leave the answer to you.
