After the lockdown: what “the (behavioural) science” tells us

Posted on by Paul Trowler

Photo of Paul Trowler and the cover of his recent book entitled Accomplishing change in teaching and learning regimes

The UK government has been under the influence of nudge theory since 2010. The behavioural insights team, led by David Halpern, became part of the Cabinet Office but is now partly privatised. Popularly known as the “nudge unit” its insights are based on behavioural economics and choice architectures - for which Richard Thaler won a Nobel prize in 2017. This understanding of what drives people’s behaviour suggests that individual attitudes, behaviours and choices can be “nudged” by simple and cheap interventions. In its emphasis on individual choice, its suspicion of big state action and its advocacy of “libertarian paternalism” the roots of nudge theory lie in neo-liberalism. As well as offering simple and cheap solutions, this resonates for Conservative governments.

Halpern is on the government’s scientific advisory committee, Sage. Lockdown fatigue is an idea attributed to him. Singing happy birthday twice while hand washing is an example of nudge. There is little-to-no evidence for the former, though the latter caught on. Nudge theory is about changing individual habits, and has come under much criticism, including from the House of Lords. Habit-change is a multi-million pound industry, not only for Halpern but the authors of many self-help books.

Underpinning nudge theory is ontological individualism, claiming that people’s behaviours are flexible and drive social change. Agency and responsibility is placed on the individual, and the focus is on their habits. Habitual behaviours remain until nudged, and cumulatively they shape the world. Post-lockdown we can expect many of the new behaviours we learned during lockdown to continue.

An alternative position comes from social practice theory, which is highly critical of the ABC theory of changing Attitudes, Behaviours and Choices. Its stresses the role of structures and processes. It sees the world as constellations of practices which are interactional in nature and involve recurrent and organised arrangements of multiple people’s activities to accomplish a set of (not necessarily mutual) goals. These recurrent behaviours are underpinned by forms of knowledge, understandings, discourses, beliefs, values, expectations and emotions which are often in tension and always multiple. The material world, physical architecture, resources and other factors also shape and constrain practices. Importantly, because of the structural features, practices are not particularly malleable and so they tend to be “engrooved”: Margaret Archer talks about chronic recursiveness. Practices are difficult to change even when they are maladapted to new circumstances. If they do change they have a tendency to snap back if they can. There is a certain chronic fatalism to practice theory too.

Ontologically, practice theory is underpinned by a version of social realism, taking into account social constructionism and, as just noted, the powers of structures. The latter are a bit hard for governments, and makes them face issues of resources and long-term factors. Nudge theory, by contrast, offers cheap and quick fixes.

“The (behavioural) science”, then, is split, and not only into these two. And the predictions these different theories and ontologies make about what will happen after lockdown are very different. Practice theory suggests there will be a strong elastic pull back to previous practices, to office-working, crowded socialising, classroom education, physical rather than online shopping. “Remote everything” will quickly become a thing of the past, even if COVID-19 is not fully defeated. Governments will face a recurring battle. Nudge theory suggests a different outcome. Habits can be changed by tips and tricks, but at the same time they are (as the name suggests) habitual once formed. We can “transform our lives with tiny changes in behaviour starting now”. And government can help us make the safe decisions by nudging our behaviour for us.

Making even fuzzy predictions about post-lockdown requires a sophisticated notion of the “behaviour” in “behavioural change”. The distinction between habits and practices is a significant one. Habits are individual, not social. They develop over time and are personal in nature. To make an analogy with language, they are idiolects rather than dialects. Practices, by contrast are socially developed and socially enacted. They involve recurrent behaviours underpinned by values, ideologies, symbolic structures. Nudge theory is right: habits can be changed. But context is important: changing hand-washing habits in the home is different from changing them in an informal settlement or migrant camp. Basing policy on a “toy version” of behaviours is dangerous. And expecting social change to arise from individual change is unrealistic: habit-change does not scale up. Changing practices represents a much tougher challenge, and results are also contextually contingent. We need to sort out the two things.

But sometimes it is not easy to distinguish between a habit and a practice. The same behaviour can be a habit in one case and a practice in another. Wearing face covering is an example: we may quickly get into the habit (as has happened elsewhere) of wearing face masks out of doors. But this is different from a woman wearing a half niqab. The latter is underpinned by values, attitudes, symbolic structures and of course religious beliefs which are absent from the former.

So, the nature of the behaviour in question and the context in which it is enacted are very significant factors in shaping what post-lockdown might look like. Neither nudge theory nor practice theory can, alone, be depended upon to help us in thinking about this.

Paul Trowler is a Professor in the Department of Educational Research at Lancaster University.

Related Blogs

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.

Back to blog listing