One of the biggest contributions that behavioural science has for the business and human rights and responsible business field is practical and robust methodologies and approaches. This is helped by the fact that there is similarity between the approaches taken by behavioural science and human rights practitioners. This is particularly noticeable in how both fields put the individual at the centre of building solutions to behavioural problems. This approach focuses on deeply understanding the context in order to identify and overcome obstacles to action. And it leads to more effective and meaningful interventions based on a grounded understanding of how people behave.
Behavioural science has several methodologies that can be leveraged, aspects of which B&HR practitioners already draw on, when trying to shape behaviour. Two key methodologies are the TEST framework and the EAST methodology.
The TEST framework is an approach to designing evidence-based interventions:
Target: Identify precisely what behaviour it is you want to change.
Explore: Understand the environment which helps/hinders the behaviour.
Solution: Design your intervention.
Trial: Run experiments and RCTs to test the efficacy of your intervention.
The EAST methodology builds on the ‘Solution’ aspect of the TEST framework to design interventions that are:
Easy: How can we remove obstacles to the desired behaviour through the smart use of default choices, removing ‘friction costs’ and hassle that puts people off, and simplifying.
Attractive: How can we attract attention (e.g. through design) or through rewarding and incentivising the desired behaviour (e.g. through prizes or lotteries).
Social: How can we leverage the behaviour of others (e.g. our peers or networks) or make commitments to others to make doing the desired behaviour more social.
Timely: How can we prompt the target at the moment when they are most receptive to trigger the desired behaviour.
These four aspects of behavioural interventions may seem common sensical but frighteningly many aspects of design fail to draw on these elements[1]. How many times have you been frustrated with a product or service experience because of bad design?
This can be addressed through robust design thinking that eschews top-down approaches and instead identifies solutions “by having the innovator live the customer’s [target of the behaviour change’s] experience”[2]. Adopting the lens of the target and experiencing what they will and/or do experience identifies barriers and enablers to good solutions. But design thinking goes further and also emphasises how the engagement, dialogue and learning of individuals involved in developing solutions is also crucial to garnering a broad commitment to change[3]. This echoes experiences from business practitioners who often find that working with diverse teams from different parts of the business, and working with affected stakeholders who utilise such mechanisms, generates better solutions and builds commitment and buy-in.
This blog has introduced some of the methodologies, approaches and mindsets from behavioural science that could be better leveraged within the responsible business field to advance the behaviour changes we want to see. I close with a quotation that captures it better than I can: “Unethical behavior is caused by momentary thoughts, interpretations, and social context. As a result, a more accurate and constructive approach for policymakers is to treat ethical behavior as a design problem. Designing environments that keep ethics top of mind, encourage ethical construals, and strengthen prosocial motivations is essential for helping to keep otherwise good people from doing bad things”[4]. Future blogs will explore the components and principles of these methodologies and approaches in greater depth.
[1] Donald Norman in ‘The Design of Everyday Things’ has countless examples of bad design
[2] Jeanne Liedtka (2018), ‘Why design thinking works’, Harvard Business Review
[3] Ibid.
[4] Epley, N., & Tannenbaum, D. (2017), ‘Treating ethics as a design problem’, Behavioral Science & Policy, 3(2), p.82