A behavioural economist is urging an empathetic approach as the best way to enforce mask-wearing in New Zealand.
It comes after news that people not wearing masks on public transport could be fined $300 on the spot from Monday as Auckland drops down to alert Level 2, joining the rest of the country.
Photo: AFP
As social distancing and public health safety rules ratchet up for New Zealanders as the latest Covid outbreak is dealt with, it is evident some people will follow these and some won't
Behavioural economist Syon Bhanot tells Jesse Mulligan there are a number of psychological and behavioural reasons why public health warnings are sometimes ignored, and what may work to change cavalier and many would argue selfish attitudes.
“Behavioural economists are all about understanding how normal people, going about their everyday lives make decisions and particularly how those decisions often stray from the rational decision," he says.
Traditional economists assume that people act accordingly to rationality, but this false assumption can skew their outlooks and models.
"One of the key assumptions in standard economics is the rational assumption – that assumption that people are cost-benefit calculating maximisers that walk around doing everything optimally and behavioural economists look at that and say, well people do that, but we also see these systemic deviations away from what’s rational, away from what’s best.
“Behavioural economists are essentially bringing a bit of realism every day, some common sense into the standard models.”
An idea pertinent to behaviour during the pandemic is externality, he says. In economics, it is the cost or benefit that affects a third party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. Within a wider social setting it signifies the cost to society or an individual of another party’s actions.
“When we bring it to Covid, a lot of the behaviours we are asking folks to do – and New Zealand has to ask again unfortunately after doing so well in the early days – are keep your distance, wear a mask, wash your hands, do things that require you to put others in society above yourself.
“It involves a personal cost. It’s not fun to wear your mask, it’s not fun to keep your distance, or stay out of bars and restaurants, but it’s good for the collective.”
Bhanot says there are a number of insights borrowed from psychology that allow an understanding as to why people may react in a seemingly selfish, individualistic way, which amount to a rejection of collective efforts to tackle the Covid threat.
The idea of 'salience', whereby people react to things most visible in our environments, gives us some insight here, he says. Covid, largely being an invisible reality for many, especially in New Zealand where the illness isn’t ubiquitous, hasn’t been a salient factor in people’s lives.
“People aren’t falling down on the street and having these Ebola-style reactions to the illness. It’s a very subtle illness and it creeps up on you… It’s not going to be salient until it’s too late, so we aren’t psychologically predisposed to reacting that much until it’s so much in our face that we can’t look away any more.”
Climate change has a similar dynamic with many people, he says.
'Psychological reactance' is a term used by Bhanot and others to describe the subjective feeling of certain 'rights' being denied, which creates resistance to this perceived denial of freedoms. The push back from individuals then further blinds them them to the social duties to fellow citizens.
“When you tell some people to wear this mask it almost turns off the rational part of their brain which, I would argue, should say ‘well, that’s kind of an inconvenience, but I wear socks, shoes, I wear a shirt, this is not that different’. That would be the sort of rational calculation,” he says.
Blanot argues that, during the early days of the Covid outbreak in the US, there was a more bipartisan approach to the crisis. But as time progressed the illness and the public health response to it became more politicised and that party-political positions became more relevant to some people, than the advice of informed public health officials.
Pushing senior health officials to the fore instead of politicians in a health crisis is key to avoiding this and promoting a unified societal approach to tackling Covid, he says.
Another factor that can hamper people obeying social rules for the common good is a complacency that Bhanot calls optimism bias. This involves people thinking others will suffer consequences but not them, under-estimating the risks that they face if they break rules.
This type of attitude, which views mandatory rules advised by health experts as inconsequential to them, may show on businesses and trains from Monday, with the Government requirement to wear masks.
Bhanot says it is difficult to enforce these rules, but that taking a clever approach based on an understanding of these psychological processes, will help.
“The really challenging thing is in a lot of these public settings, what we found here in the US - and I’m sure you have some experience of this as well – it’s really hard to confront people in a public space for deviant behaviour.
“Somebody doesn’t pay their fare on public transport. You kind of see it, you don’t approve of it, but you’re not going to be the person to ruin your day by confronting this person, so you let it go and be annoyed at them.
“The problem is with Covid of course, when somebody takes off their mask or puts it on when they get on to public transport but takes it off right away, it’s really hard for individual people to confront that person. It’s putting them in an uncomfortable position…
“We have to have some channel to broadcast the correct behaviour.”
This broadcasting, he says, can take the form of advertising campaigns championing masks and those who wear these, and in a way, socially stigmatising those to don't. This approach is more effective than threatening fines or police action, he adds.
As a general rule, using a non-aggressive in approaching the subject will get a more favourable response of difficult or complacent individuals.
“As soon as I come with an angry tone, a judgmental tone, I’m almost inviting a psychological reaction… One thing you may think about is approaching people from an empathetic perspective, like ‘I know these masks are horrible but would you mind just keeping it on for a little bit longer’, saying it in a polite way.”
