Can faith, hope and charity help us cope with Covid?
No time to nudge - faith, hope and charity in a crisis, a way of framing the debate around communication and compliance with Covid guidance and rules.
Our continuing ‘Covid crisis’ have led us along a steep learning curve, as everyone struggles to adapt to the complexity and ever-changing demands that the pandemic. This has certainly been the case for the messaging of Covid rules and guidance, where we have seen the gradual emergence of a number of lessons we could say we have learned regarding messaging and compliance.
One of these must be the appropriate use of nudging as a way of promoting behavioural change. Nudging became increasingly popular as a response to the pandemic, as the sort of messaging that promotes behavioural change by subtly directing people to the right decision (to behave in a desirable way) without overtly limiting their freedom to choose otherwise. When people make the right decision, they are rewarded for doing so, making it more likely they will repeat their choice.
Now this may well align with some political and arguably our wider social values around personal responsibility and freedom to choose, however the nudge technique has major shortfalls. In the crisis we now clearly face with Omicron, nudging may produce only short-term change or may be confusing and produce inconsistent change. Any failure to communicate the need for behavioural change could have profound consequences for our health, livelihoods and even our lives themselves.
As more restrictive guidance is re-introduced in the face of the threat of Omicron and the very real possibility of even more restrictions to come, the issue of getting the message right to ensure compliance is ever more important. One novel way of framing the current debate around messaging and compliance revolves around just three points we could broadly conceive as faith, hope and charity. Let’s start with faith.
Faith
Faith in the message depends upon establishing a firm belief in a clear and credible message. This message must be delivered by a trusted source. If any part of the message or those who deliver it is unclear, not credible or the source proves untrustworthy, the effect on desired behavioural change may be detrimental. On the other hand, as we all follow the science, the scientific messaging is generally more credible than the political messaging, particularly given recent political events and controversies.
Dr Chris Cameron
Senior Lecturer, Department of Behavioural and Social Sciences
Dr Chris Cameron is a Behavioural Scientist at the University of Huddersfield who has written and engaged with the media throughout the Covid crisis, particularly in terms messaging, public decision making and compliance with Covid rules and guidance.
However, the scientific messaging around Omicron has reflected the uncertainty around it, so both these factors have eroded our faith in the message. Uncertainty and lack of trust can have two effects on compliance. The first exhibits as low compliance with the desired behaviour, as people feel the message does not justify the measure. The second is a sort of over-compliance, where in the absence of trust and certainty people resort to measures that go beyond existing guidance and rules.
Hope
Next, hope. To affect the consistent and long-term behavioural change we so urgently need, it is essential that the message gives us all hope of a better future. Giving hope has a pivotal role creating a predisposition toward the desired behaviour and the current messaging. Whilst other measures, such as masks, social distancing and lockdowns have proven to have limited success and have significant social and economic costs, they could be argued to offer no offer no substantive new hope for the future. Our reliance on the booster injections now positioned as the best way forward. The effect of our diminishing hope may well show itself in the next factor, that is charity.
Charity
We could think of charity as the extent to which we are considerate towards and care for others, and in terms of its counterpoint, self-interest. Now if the messaging is credible, consistent, and trusted - gives us all hope for the future, the result is likely to be behavioural change and compliance with rules and guidance.
We have seen much evidence of care and consideration during the pandemic, in hospitals and the public domain where people have gone ‘above and beyond’ to care for and support others. However, if the message is not credible, consistent and trusted, and doesn’t give us all hope for the future, the result is likely to be different; people will turn to self-interest and compliance could be compromised.
The wider context?
We should not forget the importance of the overarching core message that was established at the beginning of this crisis. We all remember ‘we’re all in this together and if we work together, we’ll get through this’. This core message is at risk. Faith in political messaging is eroding. There is a new uncertainty in scientific messaging, the great hope that science can certainly save us, and other measures are of clear benefit to us compared to their social cost has been eroded.
We see the rise of an uncharitable discourse of self-determination and self-interest. It is this erosion of the core message that keeps us a coherent society that may cost us dear in terms of lives and livelihoods should it result in reduced compliance. If we’re not all in it together and hope is eroded, the underpinning of compliance with behavioural changes are weakened. Any form of compulsion and punishment for non-compliance may be seen as ineffective.
We should resist facing the ‘if only we’d have acted sooner’ debate once again. Perhaps now is the time to learn the lessons of the past rather than repeating it’s mistakes. Be clear, credible and consistent so the message is trusted, offer hope for the future and a more charitable society will act accordingly by offering the mutual care and support we all need.