Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points: 2 Show
This guide sets out a new approach for anticipating unintended consequences, called the “IN CASE” framework. It was written for policymakers and communicators by the Cabinet Office behavioural science team.
Content:
ForewordAlex Aiken, Executive Director of Government CommunicationI am very proud of the campaigns we run and the behavioural science which supports our campaigns that create opportunities for people, recruit public servants, change behaviour and save lives. As communicators, we will all be able to recall many policies and campaigns that led to expected outcomes, and perhaps some that lead to unexpected consequences. This guide is designed to help you consider, reduce, mitigate, or even eliminate those unintended consequences. From the incidental to the significant, unexpected outcomes can greatly influence the success or failure of a campaign or intervention, and it’s vitally important that we consider them as part of any campaign or policy planning process. Any intervention that aims to change behaviour in a complex system can lead to so-called “unintended consequences”, and as communicators, we should aim to anticipate as many of them as possible. That’s what this guide is all about, thinking through the actual response of people, communities and businesses to the ask that public service makes of them. Never has this been more timely. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated unprecedented Government intervention into the private lives of UK citizens, saving tens of thousands of lives but also generating a wide array of secondary consequences – from mental health challenges, to missed education, to new daily habits and routines – that will likely take years to fully comprehend. Communications is one of the five levers the Government uses to achieve its aims and deliver public policy alongside legislation, regulation, taxation and public spending. While this guide was written with communicators in mind, the framework will be useful for anyone working on campaigns or interventions that aim to change behaviour so as to improve lives. So next time you are developing a campaign or policy with a behaviour change goal, as you work through the early planning stages, use the framework set out in this guide to identify potential unanticipated consequences – just “IN CASE”! IntroductionAll government campaigns and interventions should aim to make a difference and improve the lives of the public, and many campaigns do just that. However, campaigns and policies can sometimes lead to unintended consequences – outcomes that are not anticipated or desired. Most Government campaigns or interventions aim to change behaviour within complex systems, and any intervention made in a complex system can lead to unanticipated outcomes. Anticipating and mitigating these consequences requires policymakers and communicators to systematically consider the behaviours, attitudes, and emotions that a campaign or intervention might cause. Traditionally, to minimise the risk of negative unintended consequences, policymakers and communicators can adopt tools like red teaming and systems thinking to identify and mitigate potential unintended consequences. Research and insight can also be used to ensure a full understanding of current behaviours, the environmental and social context, and the barriers and motivators to behaviour change. However, these traditional activities don’t always analyse unintended consequences on the level of how people will behave. The “IN CASE” framework supports our work, by encouraging communicators and policymakers to consider consequences from a behavioural perspective. Our previous guide, The Principles of Behaviour Change Communications, set out how to adopt a behavioural approach to campaign design using the COM-B framework. The IN CASE framework builds on this work by setting out a behavioural approach to anticipating, understanding and mitigating unintended consequences when a policy or campaign is under development. This guide begins with an introduction to the types of consequence from a campaign or policy, and then sets out our “IN CASE” framework for anticipating these consequences. This is followed by some suggestions for how identified unintended consequences might be mitigated, and the guide finishes with two worked examples to demonstrate how the framework might be used in practice. If communicators are planning their campaigns using the “OASIS” framework, “IN CASE” is best used at the “Strategy/Ideas” stage to explore potential consequences of campaign approaches once an idea is under development. For advice on behavioural science approaches to be used at the “Audience” stage, see our guide, the Principles of Behaviour Change Communications. Types of consequencesFour types of consequence can result from a campaign or intervention. They are categorised as desirable/undesirable, and anticipated/unanticipated.
You can use the “IN CASE” framework to identify any of these types of consequence, although in most cases the “Goals” of the campaign or intervention will already be defined. Once potential consequences are identified, policymakers and communicators can decide whether to tolerate them as a “Trade-off”, or attempt to mitigate them. It’s important to understand that all public policy interventions will involve trade offs of some sort – there is no intervention or campaign that will achieve its goals without having any other impact at all. The goal of this guide is not to set out how to avoid all unintended consequences of an intervention – but rather how to anticipate them, so that policymakers and communicators can decide whether to tolerate these consequences or take action to mitigate them. The “IN CASE” frameworkThe “IN CASE” framework was developed by the Cabinet Office Behavioural Science Team as a simple tool to help policymakers and communicators anticipate potential unintended behavioural consequences of a campaign or intervention. It is not intended to be fully exhaustive, but rather to provide useful prompts for consideration early in the design and planning process. The framework can be used on its own where time and resources are tight, or as a prompt to guide Red Teaming, systems mapping or research and monitoring activities. The framework is however not a replacement for other behavioural science considerations such as clear definition of target behaviours and an understanding of barriers in the way to changing behaviours. Rather, this framework is meant to apply where initial interventions have been chosen to assess them for behavioural unintended consequences. All examples given in the framework are fictional, and are intended to illustrate the principles with hypothetical scenarios.
Intended behavioursEven when a campaign or intervention leads to the desired and intended behaviour change, this may lead to unintended consequences if relevant systems, processes, places, or services cannot cope with the level or frequency of behaviour change and additional demand. Examples:
Non-target audiencesCampaigns and interventions cannot always be precisely targeted to the specific target audience, and thus it is likely that some people outside the target audience will see a campaign or hear about an intervention. This may lead to unintended behaviour changes from audiences outside the target group. Examples:
Compensatory behavioursA campaign or intervention might lead to the intended behaviour change, but may lead people to “compensate” for the behaviour change by engaging in undesirable behaviours. This may take the form of “moral licensing”, when engaging in a positive behaviour or making progress toward a goal may make people feel justified in doing things that go against the objective of the intervention. It might also take the form of an intervention creating perverse incentives. This can lead to behaviour changes that are ostensibly in line with the policy or campaign, but actually undermine its broader objectives. Examples:
Compensatory behaviours can be considered a subcategory of “Additional behaviours.” Additional behavioursA campaign or intervention may lead to additional behaviour changes beyond those originally intended. These may directly undermine the objective, support the objective, or they may be completely separate. Sometimes, additional behaviours are carried out to directly or indirectly enable the target behaviours. Additional behaviours may also be caused by a change in an individual’s self perception brought on by the original behaviour change. While it is commonly assumed that people simply behave in accordance with their attitudes and opinions, Self Perception Theory suggests that people can develop attitudes and opinions by observing their own behaviour. Examples:
SignallingAny campaign or intervention will send some sort of signal to the public about what behaviours are currently happening, what behaviours the Government wishes to encourage, and the type of relationship between the Government and the public. These signals can sometimes drown out the intended message of the campaign or intervention, and can evoke attitudes or beliefs that lead to unintended behaviour changes. Examples:
Emotional impactCampaigns and interventions can lead to an emotional response from people, which may sometimes be anticipated and desired. However, negative emotions like fear can in some circumstances lead to disengagement from the message or maladaptive behaviours (see Protection Motivation Theory). Similarly, a perceived threat to an individual’s freedom or identity can evoke psychological reactance, leading in some circumstances to people not engaging in desired behaviours out of defiance. Examples:
“IN CASE” reference with prompting questionsThe following section set out the elements of the “IN CASE” framework with prompting questions to help communicators and policymakers consider and anticipate potential unintended consequences early in a policy or campaign’s development. Once these prompting questions have been used to identify potential unintended consequences, the next step is to assess each one by the likelihood of it occurring, and its expected impact. This will make it possible to identify which unintended consequences pose the highest risk, and will enable communicators and policymakers to develop mitigation plans. Intended behavioursDefinition: A campaign or intervention successfully drives the intended behaviour change, which leads to further unintended consequences. Prompting Questions
Non-target audiencesDefinition: A campaign or intervention causes unintended behaviour or attitude changes among audiences that were not the intended target. Prompting Questions
Compensatory behavioursDefinition: A campaign or intervention leads people to change their behaviour in undesirable ways in response to perverse incentives. Prompting Questions How might people seek to compensate for the suggested behaviour change? What loopholes might there be that mean the behaviour change is being fulfilled, but due to additional behaviours that undermine the objective? If an individual or organisation wanted to exploit the intervention for gain, how might they do that? What perverse incentives might be created? Additional behavioursDefinition: A campaign or intervention leads to the intended behaviour change, but this leads to changes in other behaviours that may have undesirable consequences. Prompting Questions
SignallingDefinition: A campaign or intervention sends a signal to the public about current behaviours, expectations, and norms. Prompting Questions
Emotional impactDefinition: A campaign or intervention induced an emotional response that may lead to maladaptive behaviour changes, or disengagement/fatalism. Prompting Questions
Worked examplesThe following two worked examples demonstrate how the “IN CASE” framework can be used in practice, for both a communications campaign and a policy intervention. Communication ExampleGoal: Reduce carbon emissions by encouraging local travel. Communication: “Visit your local beach or woodland this summer – avoid travelling to other regions, and make the most of what’s on your doorstep.” Intended Behaviour
Non-Target Audiences
Compensatory Behaviours
Additional Behaviours
Signalling
Emotional Impact
Policy Intervention ExampleGoal: Encourage people to eat more fresh fruit and vegetables. Intervention: Receive a £1 voucher every time you spend £10 on fresh fruit and vegetables in participating supermarkets. Intended Behaviour
Non-Target Audiences
Compensatory Behaviours
Additional Behaviours
Signalling
Emotional Impact
Approaches for mitigating undesirable consequencesThe following section details possible approaches to mitigate any undesirable consequences identified while using the “IN CASE” framework. Intended behaviours
Non-target audiences
Compensatory behaviours
Additional behaviours
Signalling
Emotional impact
ConclusionThe “IN CASE” framework offers policymakers and communicators a straightforward and simple approach to anticipating the consequences of interventions and campaigns. Since developing it, we have already found it useful in our own work, and we hope that this guide will bring it to a wider audience across Government and beyond, to aid in the development of behaviour change campaigns and interventions that achieve their objectives and have a positive impact on the wider public. If you’ve used the “IN CASE” framework, we would really like to hear about your experience and feedback. For this and any other questions or suggestions regarding this guide, you can get in touch with us at . About the GCS Behavioural Science TeamThis guide was developed by the GCS Behavioural Science Team based in the Cabinet Office. The team provides expert support to central government campaigns, and additionally offers behavioural science consultancy services across government, covering communications, policy and operations. Our approach involves breaking problems down into their constituent parts to understand the desired behaviours and how barriers to their completion manifest themselves to different groups of people. Most behaviours can be explained by individuals responding to their situation and environment in a way that makes sense to them. We believe that most people endeavour to do the best they can, given their circumstances. Detailed exploration often reveals that behaviour that may look “irrational” is often a perfectly logical response to complexity, stress, ambiguity, or uncertainty. We see our role as designing communications that help people make decisions and take actions. To achieve this we go further than merely applying solutions from the behavioural science literature – we instead analyse the problem using behavioural science frameworks, and develop bespoke, contextual solutions. The team then develops recommendations designed to systematically overcome those barriers in psychologically relevant ways. AcknowledgementsThis guide was written by (in alphabetical order): Abigail Emery, Dr Laura de Molière, Dr Paulina Lang, Dr Moira Nicolson, and Eleanor Prince. The authors thank colleagues across government and academia for providing their comments and suggestions. ContactReferencesBem, D. J. (1972) “Self-perception theory” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press. Brehm, J. W. (1966) “A theory of psychological reactance”. Academic Press. Government Communications Service (2021) The Principles of Behaviour Change Communications, GOV.UK Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010) “Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass Ministry of Defence (2010) Red teaming: a guide to the use of this decision making tool in defence, GOV.UK Rogers, R. W., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (1997) “Protection motivation theory” in D. S. Gochman, Handbook of Health Behavior Research, Plenum Press Toma M, Dreischulte T, Gray NM, et al (2018) “Balancing measures or a balanced accounting of improvement impact: a qualitative analysis of individual and focus group interviews with improvement experts in Scotland” BMJ Quality & Safety When considering potential resistance what question should the communicator ask themselves?When considering potential resistance, what question should the communicator ask themselves? What concerns and objections will the audience have? You're writing a sales message to entice potential customers to join your gym.
What is considered to be the most critical element of persuasion?So what is considered to be the most critical element of persuasion? Some would say that credibility of the source is the most critical element of persuasion. While we agree to a certain extent, we also believe that a good persuasion strategy contains a healthy mix of all 4 elements of persuasion.
How can a person establish credibility with his or her audience if the person is unknown to that audience?For example, if you are unknown to the audience, you can establish credibility through expertise by citing credentials and demonstrating knowledge.
In what stage of the writing process does Determining the best medium to deliver your message take place?The planning stage requires that the writer analyze the situation, gather relevant and accurate information, choose the best medium for delivery, and organize or outline the content of their communication.
|