Guilt-tripping doesn't seem to work, if you want people to radically change their behaviours. Positively affirming them does
From United Nations on Unsplash
You’re trying to get a friend or relative to responsibly wear their mask in indoor retail spaces, or busy social places. Or you want the same friend to think again about an easy return to easily-taken flights and holidays, or their trash-generating lifestyles. What to say or do? How to engage them emotionally, ethically, intellectually?
We came upon two research-led pieces this week which give us direct answers here. One is from the excellent new Aeon spin-off, Psyche. It brings a set of steady findings from social psychology which show that positive self-directed emotions may be an under-used resource for activism. They write:
It’s important to distinguish here between guilt that arises internally, and guilt that’s externally induced. If we feel guilty about failing to recycle our plastics or adopt a vegetarian diet, we might be motivated to engage in reparative action.
But if someone buttonholes us over dinner and tries to make us feel bad about our lifestyle choices, the picture might look very different; we might become defensive and try to justify our actions, which drives us further away from changing the way we behave.
These scenarios then raise doubts about whether negative self-directed emotional appeals will be effective at promoting prosociality.
In a study that my colleagues and I conducted at Columbia University in New York, we set out to test the consequences of positive versus negative self-directed emotions. Participants were prompted to think about either how guilty they felt about non-environmentally friendly behaviour, or how proud they might be for acting to preserve the environment.
They were then asked a range of questions, such as whether they would pay increased rent to have more energy-efficient appliances, how likely they were to take public transport, and whether they’d be willing to use reusable shopping bags and mugs.
Those participants who had been thinking of how proud they would feel about themselves chose to have a higher number of energy-efficient appliances compared with those participants who had been asked to think about personal guilt. Furthermore, participants in the pride group expressed higher intentions to engage in green behaviours compared with those in the guilt group.
These findings suggest that inducing people to consider positive rather than negative self-directed emotions might recruit more people to a climate-change mitigation agenda, and to prosocial behaviour more broadly.
This potential advantage – of appealing to positive emotions over negative ones – links up with what we know about human self-perception. Having a positive self-image about who we are and what we do is a fundamental human need. When we’re balanced and on good terms with ourselves, we are more energetic and have greater cognitive and emotional resources.
By contrast, when we feel bad about ourselves, it’s much more difficult to be prosocial – especially if those feelings and actions aren’t geared towards friends and family, but a removed, impersonal ‘greater good’. Satisfying our important internal needs as emotional creatures can help us free up prosocial resources for others.
Research on self-affirmation supports this picture. In one study, we prompted one set of participants to engage in a self-affirming exercise. This involved reflecting on the values and behaviours that were important to them, and that they appreciated in themselves.
Another group completed an unrelated exercise, describing the layout of the store at which they shop most frequently. This second ‘control’ group allowed us to quantify the effect of the self-affirmation exercise.
Both groups were entered into a raffle to win a $10 bonus, and were given the option to either keep the money for themselves or to donate all or a portion to a selection of charities with varying missions and beneficiaries.
The ‘affirmation’ group reported feeling more positively about themselves and more at peace with themselves – and what’s more, these positive self-directed emotions translated into increased levels of charitable giving compared with those participants who had engaged in the unrelated exercise.
More here. There are a few more persuasive studies in the Psyche piece, one in particular tested across Nigerian and American prisoners, coming back with consistent results. The author comments:
The fact that a positive self-image can enhance prosociality doesn’t seem to depend on a particular culture but could be an intrinsic part of human behaviour more generally. Feeling good about ourselves doesn’t just enhance individual wellbeing by fulfilling a fundamental human psychological need; it can also translate into acts of kindness towards others, for the benefit of society at large.
A positive self-image can create a flywheel effect, in which the resulting prosocial behaviour sends a social signal to others. If others discriminate less, we are less likely to do so; if people in our social groups recycle more and watch their carbon footprint, we are more likely to do so.
Getting a critical mass to ‘join in’ and acknowledging problems can, over time, help to shift norms – which are drivers, not just inhibitors, of human behaviour.
The potential of positive self-directed emotions has largely not been embraced by activists. The worry could be that it might make those engaging in the cause appear self-satisfied or selfish.
But these studies suggest that, instead of focusing on ‘doom and gloom’ messaging that zooms in on people’s shortcomings and risks alienating them, policymakers and strategists might find that positive messaging, speaking to people’s positive sense of self, might be a more powerful lever of behavioural change.
The second piece, from Open Democracy, confirms much of the above, and zeros in on the very present matter of mask-wearing. As well as shaming not working, the author identifies a few other faulty stratagems, beyond “don’t be self-righteous, condescending, or judgmental”, including “Don’t vilify or polarize”, and interestingly, “Don’t use hashtags”:
#maskon or #masks4all sound innocent enough, but research shows that hashtags are polarizing. A hashtag is like a neon sign announcing, “This is a highly controversial topic, and you must pick a side. If you pick the wrong side, I will hate you. If you pick the right side, then fellow members of your stupid backwards tribe will hate you.” It’s lose-lose.
What should you do? A few suggestions from OD:
Use credible messengers. Epidemiologist Gary Slutkin is the founder of Cure Violence, an organization credited with reducing shootings in Chicago by 67% during its first year, in 2000. In addition to continued violence prevention, Cure Violence has launched a COVID-19 campaign, distributing masks and educational resources in communities of color.
According to Slutkin, public health educators have to be trusted and accepted in the communities where they work. If the target audience is conservatives, look for or create memes that feature Republicans wearing masks.
From United Nations on Unsplash
Be Culturally Appropriate. Credible messengers should be culturally appropriate, too…. If you’re trying to reach conservative Whites, a picture of someone who looks like them or a celebrity they admire wearing a mask is likely going to be more relatable and, hence, more effective.
Another cultural vein to tap is patriotism or pride of place. A mask that says “COVID: Don’t mess with Texas” or a mask with a sports team logo or an American flag pattern will be as appealing to some people as a “Black Lives Matter” mask is to others. You want the person to think to themselves, “The people wearing masks are my kind of people. They must have good reasons for masking. I should probably mask too.”
Lean into people’s desire to protect their own. Protecting vulnerable members of one’s community is a natural human impulse. It is present, at least to some degree, in everyone. But sometimes it can be stamped out by countervailing desires, fears, disinformation, or polarizing rhetoric.
If someone feels that masking infringes their liberty, you can’t expect to convince them that masking does not infringe their liberty or that their liberty is of secondary importance to public health. What you can do is suggest that people like them, people who care about others, are people who make personal sacrifices, such as masking, to protect others.
Present clear information. For example, share information about the dangers of COVID-19. This jaw-dropping chart race shows how the virus has overtaken other diseases and dangers to become the leading cause of death worldwide as of mid-June. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health professor Douglas Storey says that “threat salience” is a key motivator: When people believe they are susceptible to an illness, and that the consequences are potentially severe, they are more likely to take precautions—especially if they see that the precautions are likely to be effective.
Follow up with empathy. If your social media post triggers questions or pushback, you have a golden opportunity to engage more deeply. Build empathy by acknowledging that masking is a burden and a sacrifice and asking what is hardest about it for them. Share what’s been hard for you as the pandemic drags on. If they have pre-existing health conditions, tell them you’re worried about their getting sick.
If they have questions, answer them straightforwardly. If you’re presenting data, say why you trust the source but don’t claim that it’s an “indisputable fact” (even if it is). Acknowledge their concerns and then, rather than telling them what to do, tell them what you’re doing and why:
“Yeah, wearing a mask is annoying and uncomfortable. I’m doing it anyway for the same reason I would want my surgeon to wear a mask: I truly believe it reduces the risk of infection.