Why don't people change their behaviour when we've given them the facts?

Why is it that we can give people all the information they need to make a better decision, and they still carry on doing exactly what they've always done?

It's a question I've been thinking about quite a bit recently, particularly when it comes to communicating complicated problems. We can explain the evidence, make a perfectly reasonable case for change and still find ourselves wondering why nothing much has shifted.

Whether we're trying to encourage more recycling, improve road safety, reduce water consumption or build community support for an infrastructure project, we're often asking people to reconsider something they've been doing for years.

And humans, as we know, are creatures of habit.

One of the things I find fascinating about behaviour change is how much influence we can have before we even get to the practical actions we're asking people to take.

The way we introduce a problem, the language we choose and the connections we help people make can influence whether someone is willing to consider doing something differently.

Our brains love a shortcut

Daniel Kahneman explored this in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. He described two modes of thinking. System 1 is fast, automatic and intuitive, while System 2 is slower, more deliberate and requires effort.

We rely heavily on that fast thinking to get through our days. Imagine having to consciously think through every decision, from brushing your teeth to which route you'll take to work. We'd be exhausted before morning tea.

This has interesting implications for anyone working in communications and engagement.

When we present a complex problem, we often start with the technical explanation. We want people to understand the evidence, the constraints and the reasons behind a decision.

Fair enough. We want people to have the facts.

But we also need to think about how people will process that information, particularly when it challenges their existing beliefs or habits.

I've been interested in the work of The Workshop, a New Zealand research and communications organisation that explores how people understand complex issues and how framing can influence public thinking.

One of the tools I particularly like is the use of explanatory chains. These help people understand how something works by connecting the causes of a problem with its consequences, and showing where an action can make a difference.

Metaphors are another useful tool. They give our brains something familiar to hang a complicated idea on. When a metaphor is well chosen, it can help people understand a system or relationship that might otherwise take pages of technical explanation.

The important bit is that the explanation remains grounded in fact.

Who are we trying to shift?

I find it helpful to think about behaviour change through the shape of a bell curve.

At one end are people who are already committed to the behaviour we're encouraging. At the other are those who, for a variety of reasons, are strongly opposed or unlikely to change.

In the middle are people who might be open to doing things differently, provided they can see the value, understand what's being asked and have a practical way to act.

That's where I'd be looking carefully when designing a behaviour change programme.

What does this group already believe? What's stopping them? Is it a lack of understanding, convenience, confidence, cost, or simply that the current habit works well enough?

We can spend an enormous amount of energy trying to convince the most vocal opponents. Sometimes that is necessary, particularly when their concerns reveal a genuine problem. But if our objective is widespread behaviour change, we also need to pay attention to the much larger group who may be quietly willing to shift.

The difference between 'us and them' and 'we'

One of the most powerful framing shifts I've worked with in local government is moving from an organisational 'us and them' mindset towards 'we'.

It sounds almost ridiculously simple.

Yet consider the difference between a council telling residents what they must do, and a council positioning itself as part of a community working together to look after something everyone relies on.

The first can reinforce a sense of authority imposing rules. The second creates an opportunity for shared responsibility.

I've seen how much difference this can make.

In one local council, community sentiment on social media had become so aggressive that comments had been turned off on most posts. Complaints and negative reactions were dominating the conversation. A lot of resource went into managing the social media comments. The worst of it though was the detrimental effect the constant negative comments were having on staff.

As part of a strategic communications uplift, we reconsidered how council communicated with its community. That included shifting the framing towards shared purpose and making much stronger connections between the council's strategy and the content being published.

It also meant saying no to some of the noise.

Every internal request for a Facebook post didn't automatically deserve a place in the public conversation. We needed to consider what the community needed to know, why it mattered and whether the content was helping achieve the organisation's wider objectives.

Over time, the tone of the conversation changed. Comments were turned back on, and there was a noticeable increase in supportive community responses.

I wouldn't attribute that shift to framing alone. It was part of a wider strategic change in how communications were approached. But the experience reinforced for me how much the relationship between an organisation and its community is influenced by the way it communicates.

Applying behaviour change to waste minimisation and recycling

I recently applied this thinking when developing a strategic communications framework for a local government waste minimisation programme.

The underlying challenge was practical. Landfill space is finite, and the more waste that can be reduced, reused or diverted, the longer that capacity lasts. That has implications for future costs and the resources available to the community.

We could approach that challenge by telling people to recycle more and explaining the rules.

But I was interested in how we could help people understand the wider system they were part of, and why their everyday decisions mattered.

The framing centred on looking after what we have and making the most of it.

That gave the different initiatives, from kerbside recycling education and composting to textile reuse and business waste reduction, a common foundation.

It also changed the questions we asked when planning communications.

What are people already doing well that we can build on? What would make the next step easier? How do we explain what happens to materials after they're collected, so people understand the value of separating them properly?

And importantly, how do we make the desired behaviour practical enough that people can actually do it? Even the best explanation won't overcome a system that makes the preferred behaviour unnecessarily difficult.

A successful behaviour change programme needs communications, education and service delivery working together.

For waste minimisation, that means making it easier for households and businesses to understand their options, see the benefits and make different choices in everyday life.

The framework has now been handed over, providing a consistent approach to connect individual communications activities with the wider waste minimisation objectives. The next step for the programme is to look beyond communications metrics, such as reach and engagement, and understand whether people are doing things differently. Are we seeing less contamination in recycling? Are more materials being diverted from landfill? Are households and businesses adopting new habits that last?

Having a clear starting point and knowing what behaviours we're trying to influence gives us something meaningful to measure. It also allows the approach to be refined as we learn what works, rather than simply continuing to communicate and hoping for the best.

The question I keep coming back to

When we're planning communications for behaviour change, I think we need to spend more time understanding how people see the problem before deciding how we're going to explain the solution.

What makes sense to the technical expert or the organisation may be quite different from what makes sense to someone going about their everyday life.

Sometimes, changing the way we frame a problem creates the opening for people to consider a different way of doing things.

That's a pretty useful place to start.

P.S. If you're working on a project where you need people to understand a complex issue, get behind a change or do something differently, this is the sort of challenge I love getting my teeth into. You can find out more about how I work at www.margotb.nz.