Is the use of behavioural insights in government ethical? This question has been debated by policymakers, commentators and academics all over the world. Critics argue that behavioural interventions manipulate citizens, impose paternalism and do not preserve individual autonomy.
These are important concerns, and something the team at BETA thinks about a lot when applying behavioural insights to public policy problems. At a recent presentation, BETA Academic Advisory Panel Member (and BETA’s founding Director) – Professor Michael Hiscox – outlined key principles to guide the ethical application of behavioural science in government. BETA consistently applies these principles in all of our work.
Principles to ‘Nudge for good’
Promote the welfare of citizens
The aim of any ethical behavioural insights intervention is for people to be better off. An ethical intervention helps align people’s actions with their intentions. In other words, an intervention should make it easier for people to do the thing they want to do, or know they should do (i.e. overcome the intention-action gap). In some instances, it is straightforward to infer peoples’ intentions. For example, most people know they should go to the dentist regularly, therefore an appointment reminder is a worthwhile intervention.
In 2017, BETA partnered with the then Department of Human Services to help job seekers report their employment income to the department on-time and help avoid cancellation of their payments. There was a clear intention-action gap – no job seeker wants to get their income support cancelled because they forgot to report their income. To avoid this, we designed and tested different versions of SMS reminders. The results showed that SMS reminders increased the number of people who reported on time. A simple intervention like this demonstrates how we can improve the welfare of people through small changes to administrative process.
Some behavioural interventions go beyond the individual-level intention-action gap. These interventions focus on behaviours that are likely to have broader societal impacts. For example, governments around the world have applied behavioural science to discourage tax avoidance or speeding. In these situations, the positive societal impacts of an intervention should be weighed up against the costs faced by individuals whose decisions are directly affected by the intervention. For the most part, established social norms and existing laws (as is the case for tax avoidance and speeding) act as a benchmark for whether an intervention is appropriate.
Treat citizens with respect
Ethical behavioural interventions treat people with respect and are not deceptive or manipulative.
It can be hard for people to make informed and considered decisions. People often need to understand loads of information, weigh-up costs and navigate complex administrative processes. A well-designed behavioural intervention helps focus people’s limited attention. Ethical interventions draw out the most important elements of a decision, ease navigation, and align people’s actions with their intentions.
In 2020, BETA designed and tested a number of activity statements that would be sent to people who gamble online. The redesigned activity statements clearly displayed the dollar amount of wins and losses over a three-month period, the overall loss (or win) amount, and comparison to the prior year. When presented with the statement, people were able to understand more clearly how much they were gambling. In our trial, this led to people reducing the amount they bet. The findings of this research informed new online wagering regulations, with activity statement templates adopted by Australian states and territories.
These two guiding principles are key to managing concerns and minimising the risk when applying behavioural science in government and public policy.
There is no way to avoid behavioural policy. The way policies and programs are presented, how their processes are set up, and the words used to describe choices all influence how people respond and make decisions. Therefore, the question is not whether to apply behavioural policy – as all government and private organisations already do so, intentionally or otherwise – but how to use it ethically and with a clear purpose.
How BETA ensures its work is ethical
Professor Hiscox noted that the best safeguard for ensuring behavioural policy is welfare improving is evidence. Careful diagnostic research assessing the wants of individuals directly affected by the policy should be combined with an evaluation of broader welfare impacts prior to scale-up. Similarly, the best safeguard for ensuring that behavioural policy treats people with respect is transparency. Publicly justifying policy based on its welfare impacts allows people to scrutinize interventions to ensure they serve their best interests.
BETA has safeguards in place to ensure our work is in the best interest of Australians. We conduct extensive research to assess the impacts of behavioural policy, using qualitative and quantitative approaches – including rigorously designed randomized controlled trials – to evaluate whether policy helps people close intention-action gaps and improves the lives of all those affected. This allows us to carefully consider the overall aim and impact of the project, including potential unintended outcomes on the community before deciding whether to progress with an intervention.
All primary research conducted at BETA is subject to an independent ethical review process by Macquarie University’s Human Research Ethics Committee. This process ensures that our research protocols meet ethical standards and requires BETA to thoroughly outline any potential risk of harm to participants involved in the research, as well as detail the data protection and privacy controls in place.
BETA is transparent about the work we do, and we do this by disclosing our trials ahead of time and by publishing our findings on our website. This practice creates greater accountability for our work, and encourages knowledge sharing with policy teams, researchers and other interested parties.