Communicating behaviour change
Note from a seminar – does not reflect ippr policy position
This seminar was the second seminar in ippr’s flagship project on Behaviour Change and
Personal Responsibility. The project aims to develop a framework for what a progressive
government’s role should be in relation to changing public attitudes and behaviour, and to set
out the most effective techniques for behaviour change. The seminar aimed to explore the
role of communications in an overarching behaviour change strategy.
The speakers were: Gordon Pincott (Global Development Director, Millward Brown);
Professor Dick Eiser (Head of the Psychology Department, Sheffield University); Conrad Bird
(Head of Strategic Communication, Government Communication Group, Cabinet Office)
Attenedees were: British Bankers’Association; BMRB; Cabinet Office; COI; Department of
Health; Department for Works and Pensions; FSA; Healthcare Commission; ippr; Kantar;
King’s Fund; Millward Brown; National Consumer Council; National Consumer Society; NICE;
Prudential; Sheffield University;
The seminar was held under Chatham House rules.
The discussion was informed by the following presentations:
The role of communications in a behaviour change strategy
Gordon Pincott focused on the commercial sector and explained the success of marketing
campaigns that effect behaviour change in consumers.
 Success is predicated on the following factors: weight; share of voice; media choice
(finding the right time to target a specific demographic); memorability of the creative; and
brand elasticity. It was noted that brand elasticity implies an understanding of the target
audience.
 The likelihood of change in behaviour is stimulated by the perceived benefit and mitigated
by the effort it takes and the perceived risk involved.
Persuasion, Communication and Trust
Professor Dick Eiser looked at persuasion, communication and trust and made the following
key points:
 Success in changing beliefs and intentions does not always follow through to behaviour
due to low personal control and the strength of past behaviour/habits.
 Persuasion is predicated on the relationship between the communicator and audience
and not just the message. Trust in those providing the information is therefore key.
Medics and scientists are perceived to have knowledge and are trusted, unlike industry
which is perceived as high on knowledge but low on trust.
 Communicating risk poses difficult questions for communication strategies. For example:
should experts tell people to stop eating lamb because theoretically BSE could be in the
sheep population? But if the government does not relay the message and a crisis occurs
what happens to trust?
Engage: a strategic approach to government communication
Conrad Bird outlined the government’s strategic approach to communications, Engage.
 Engage seeks to adapt and understand issues that face the private sector and establish a
practical set of tools that effect behaviour change. The initiative also seeks to effect
change at the level of policy and delivery. By connecting Whitehall with the public and its
instincts it aims to bring the views of the public to the centre of policy.
 Key principles include: aiming for behaviour change; identifying targets successfully;
grounding communications in deep insight; arriving at motivating propositions.
The note below summarises some of the key points and recommendations raised during the
round table discussion:
A wider framework
Government communication has limits and there is evidence that communication strategies
need to sit within a wider legislative framework. The THINK campaign that raised awareness
of the dangers of not wearing a seatbelt was underpinned by appropriate legislation. However
legislation cannot work in isolation. It may be a necessary condition of behaviour change but it
is not a sufficient condition, as the shared endeavour to handle animal rights extremism
illustrates.
So communications and legislation cannot be viewed as mutually exclusive. Legislation can
help reframe debates and shore up the outcome of government communications.
An alternative model
The influence of the collective mind set and social norms on individual behaviour cannot be
underestimated. Not only is it much easier for government to effect behaviour change if it is
“going with the grain” but it can speed up the pace of change. But a government that seeks to
set social norms is open to charges of nanny statism. Although critics may agree that the
state should provide timely and expert information, they argue that it is up to the individual to
decide how they should behave.
An alternative model, however, might seek to draw the grassroots into the decision making
process. Not only is this more likely to effect behaviour change but a government that
genuinely listens is better for society and democracy. Operation Trident is an example of the
state and civil society working together to effect behaviour change. A Metropolitan Police
initiative aimed at reducing gun crime, Operation Trident is held to account by an Independent
Advisory Group made up of influential community leaders.
Leadership, however, is essential and this implies that synergy between the grassroots and
government needs to be directed by government.
The Environment
Although attempts to change behaviour are action orientated, behaviour change actually rests
on a point of decision: an individual decides to change their behaviour and then acts
accordingly. Creating the right environment (both physical and circumstantial) can trigger the
decision making process and make it more likely that action occurs.
Example 1: Reducing smoking
Banning smoking in public places eases the decision not to smoke.
Example 2: Reducing skin cancer
Providing shade in hot climates (ex: parasols on a beach) allows an individual to decide
whether to seek shade.
The environment is therefore a key factor in determining behaviour change and the
government may need to take leadership on environment.
Smarter spending
Gordon Pincott’s presentation illustrated that weight and share of voice are important
determinants of successful communication strategies. It would therefore appear that
multinationals have comparative advantage over the government. How, for example, is the
government going to successfully campaign against obesity in the face of McDonalds
marketing campaigns?
Attendees agreed, however, that the success of government communications is not simply
dependent on the level of spend (although a minimum spend is required). Smarter spending
would see fewer and stronger government messages that draw on the government’s authority
and credibility. FRANK and Directgov were highlighted as examples of successful
government brands that reach their target audiences.
Conclusions



Although costs associated with controlled trials can be high, not doing a trial can result in
wasting money on a campaign that could have been spent more effectively. There are
some government controlled trials, such as Consumer Direct, but where possible
departments should fund controlled trials.
Frontline staff are an under utilised resource. Local health staff, for example, have the
potential to act as trusted ambassadors. Commercial markets do not have this asset and
the government needs to capitalise on this resource.
An audience centred approach to communications is key. Although departments are
constitutionally separate to the centre of government audience insight specialists, who
look at audiences and map out campaigns, should be set up to work across government.