How much do you bend the law?

Even though both cities have similar income levels, the difference between the two interventions was striking:

• Without reciprocity: In Chattanooga, response rates increased from 31.9% to 35.6%.
• With reciprocity: In Lexington, response rates more than doubled from 25.0% to 59.7%.

The two hours that 5 people spent writing messages on about 1,500 envelopes definitely paid off: Every dollar spent printing and mailing letters created a return of $90 in Lexington as compared to $13 in Chattanooga.

Overall, the one-month trial in Lexington generated a net revenue of $139,000. If the revised letter had been sent out to the entire sample, revenue collected that month would have been around $225,000.

Creating greater ‘Street Harmony’ by challenging cyclist behaviour and motorists’ beliefs

The Behavioural Architects (TBA) have also been leveraging some of these same insights to improve citizen behaviour in the UK. For example, we designed a simple behavioural intervention to reduce tension between cyclists and motorists in London which resulted in a marked decrease in the number of cyclists jumping red lights at the junctions where it was trialled.

After conducting qualitative research to better understand the behaviour of both cyclists and motorists, we saw there was a big gap in perception versus reality in terms of how many cyclists actually jumped lights compared to motorists’ perception of this. On average motorists perceive around 80% of cyclists behave in this way, but in reality, the figure is typically around 30% depending on the junction. Behavioural science helps us understand this discrepancy; we know that it is the jumpers who are much more salient in motorists’ minds than those cyclists who wait patiently at the lights and draw no attention to themselves. This can lead motorists to lump all cyclists together, making them, in motorists’ minds, all likely to be jumpers and causing motorists to be generally negatively disposed towards cyclists on busy London streets.

Based on these insights, TBA designed a simple trial at two high traffic junctions in London. A series of red posters displayed at the junctions, and salient to the eye (see image), communicated to both motorists and cyclists that only a minority of cyclists jump red lights; the majority of cyclists ‘wait at red lights’. These statements leveraged the concept of social norms, challenging not only the behaviour of deviant red-light jumping cyclists and making them think again before they cycled on, but also the inaccurate beliefs of motorists. The trial resulted in a decrease in ‘jumping behaviour’ of 21.4% at one of the junctions and 14.5% at another.

The trial resulted in multiple good outcomes - it rewarded good cycling citizens, challenged and nudged deviant ones to change their behaviour, and reduced tensions with motorists by getting them to rethink their common belief that all cyclists jump red lights. Expanding the trial to a larger area within London and to other cities could help to improve ‘street harmony’ and reduce tension on the roads nationwide.

How gaining a deeper behavioural understanding can fundamentally challenge existing beliefs

...and inspire better nudges.

In New York City, citizens caught committing a minor offence; riding a bike on the pavement for example, or consuming alcohol in a public place, littering or spitting in public, can receive a ticket. The ticket, known as a summons, requires citizens to show up in court where they can plead guilty or not guilty to the offence. However, if they fail to show up, the police will issue a warrant for their arrest. It can happen immediately and they can end up in jail, even if only for a short time. Despite the horror of this potential outcome, in 2014 around 40% of the 320,000 New Yorkers issued with a summons failed to appear in court to defend themselves and warrants were issued for their arrest. Why were citizens failing to comply?

To better understand people’s behaviour and the possible triggers for their failure to appear in court and come up with ways of tackling this problem, the behavioural science consultancy ideas42 partnered with the New York Police Department, the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice and the NY Office of Court Administration.  ideas42 undertook in-depth behavioural research amongst those citizens who had failed to appear on their court date. Many people in the NYPD and Mayor’s Office had assumed that, given the stiff penalty, people would only miss court if they deliberately chose to do so.

However, the interviews revealed that citizens were making decisions skewed by cognitive bias and based on erroneous beliefs. Some were put off by the negative perceptions they had of the court experience, anticipating that it would be frightening and uncomfortable, perceptions often created and magnified by the media – and known as availability bias. There was also a tendency to bury their heads in the sand and try and ignore the whole situation - the ostrich effect. Some felt the punishment was excessive and did not fit the crime, whilst others, in the chaos of their busy lives, simply forgot to show up.

There were still others, particularly those on low incomes, who worried more about lost time off work than the threat of arrest. They preferred to put things off, discounting the future in behavioural science terminology, preferring to avoid a court appearance now, but risking an even worse outcome in the future.

Finally, many citizens struggled with the practical details of appearing in court, especially those who had inflexible or unpredictable jobs, finding it difficult to put in place a plan for taking time off work and to remember to follow through on that plan.

With these insights in mind, ideas42 set about redesigning the summons form (see the old and new versions of the form above). They made simple, but effective changes to the form including:

• Changing the title of the form to make the fact that it was a court summons more salient. The new form’s title ‘Criminal Court Appearance Ticket’ made the individual’s status of defendant apparent from the outset, compared to the old form, confusingly titled ‘Complaint/Information’.
• Making clear the negative consequences of not appearing in court, stating early in the form “To avoid a warrant for your arrest, you must show up in court”. This frames and emphasises the potential loss the individual will suffer if they do nothing. Evidence shows that people often respond more to information that focuses on potential losses.
• Using personal language, for example, “your arrest” or “You are charged”. This engages the citizen directly and gets their attention, making it clear what the form means for them.
• Making the key information salient and easy to find on the form, moving the court appearance date and time and location to the top of the form and writing it in bold text. This makes it easier for people to start making a plan as they have the information they need.

Ideas42 is currently running a randomised controlled trial to test the new form and is collating and analysing results to see if the new form has helped to improve citizens’ action.

In conclusion

The examples above are just some of the many initiatives using behavioural science to solve social and government problems. Taking time to understand the barriers and triggers behind any desired behaviour can not only challenge the existing beliefs and assumptions we have about behaviour, but also provide us with a plethora of simple actions that might dial down those barriers and make the triggers more salient, achieving significant behavioural change in the process.  And, maybe, making us all better citizens, nudge by nudge.