Limitations of informing for influencing behaviour

Written by Frank Nuijens

15 March 2021

Informing your audience is one of the most used strategies for communicating science. But what if you want the information you are giving to actually change behaviour, like stimulating people to adhere to corona measures? This essay discusses the limitations of informing when influencing behaviour.

The communication grid of Betteke van Ruler describes four communication strategies divided along two axes: is the communication one-way or two-way (are there one or more senders) and is the communication aimed at disclosure or influencing. Informing is one-way communication with the aim of disclosure[1].

Informing is an important and frequently used tool in the toolbox of communication professionals. But its greatest limitation for behavioural change is that transferring knowledge does not necessarily lead to a change in behaviour in a linear way via a change in attitude[2]:

  1. It is difficult and sometimes impossible to get the attention for a message (the sign to keep to the 1.5 metre rule can escape your attention amidst all the marketing stimuli in a store[3]).
  2. A change in knowledge does not always result in a change in attitude[4] (you can understand the 1.5 metre rule but think that you will not get sick anyway).
  3. A change in attitude does not always result in a change in behaviour (you can think it is important that everyone keeps to the 1.5 metre rule and violate it yourself consciously or unconsciously).

The often quoted knowledge-leads-to-attitude-leads-to-behaviour trite itself occurs more often in the reverse order: people exhibit behaviour – consciously or unconsciously – that they try to underpin by adopting an appropriate attitude, which they underpin with selective facts. Think, for example, of not complying with the corona measures because of believing in a conspiracy theory.

Designing a successful behavioural intervention requires a thorough analysis of the problem. For example, the approach for influencing automatic behaviour (e.g. the 1.5 metre distance measure) versus planned behaviour (e.g. one visitor per household measure) differs. The influence of informing differs per approach: for planned behaviour, information plays a bigger role than for automatic behaviour[5].

Another limitation of informing is that knowledge that is transferred is not necessarily interpreted in the same way by each recipient. As Van Ruler sometimes puts it: Meaning is in the head, not in the message. Information can therefore influence behaviour in unintended or unexpected ways[6].

Finally, the behavioural sciences teach us that behaviour often comes about unconsciously[7]. The rational, conscious system of people[8], which is served by information, requires energy and focus. The automatic, unconscious system works faster and is therefore often given priority: our brain would rather be fast than 100% correct. As a result, people often know the 1.5 metre rule, even understand it, but do not follow it.

Footnotes

  1. According to Van Ruler, informing is “the strategy of the sender who wants to let another person know something, so that this makes him or her think, he or she can form an opinion and, if necessary, take a decision on how to act”.
  2. Pol, L. R., & Swankhuisen, C. E. (2020). Overheidscommunicatie: Een gedragswetenschappelijke aanpak. Uitgeverij Coutinho.
  3. System 1 as described by Daniel Kahneman constantly makes quick, unconscious choices in the battle for attention.
  4. Depending on the central (thorough) or peripheral (superficial) processing of information (Elaboration Likelihood Model).
  5. And that determines which methodologies can best be applied. Do you use the extensive Intervention Mapping or Behaviour Change Wheel method, for example, or is one or more of Cialdini’s seven influencing interventions more suitable?
  6. An elegant study from 2013 shows that people can draw the wrong conclusion from a simple, unambiguously interpretable set of data depending on their political persuasion. Our ability to act rationally on information, even factual information, is limited.
  7. The government already makes use of this knowledge when communicating corona measures. Of Cialdini’s seven principles, for example, the principle Unity is used: “Only together do we get corona under control”. In shops, nudging is often used, another way of influencing unconscious behaviour, e.g. by applying red and white chequered tape (a threat) on the floor to make people keep 1.5 metres distance.
  8. System 2 as defined by Daniel Kahneman.

You may also like…

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.