Behaviour Change: What role do we want governments to play? An international comparison
•
3 likes•952 views
How governments try to shape the behaviours of their citizens is something that has been much discussed over the past few years. Key to the debate is the extent to which people think it is acceptable for their government to intervene in their choices and what this intervention should look like. This presentation was delivered at our March 2012 event "Acceptable Behaviour? Public opinion on behaviour change policy".
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Behaviour Change: What role do we want governments to play? An international comparison
Similar to Behaviour Change: What role do we want governments to play? An international comparison (20)
More from Ipsos UK
More from Ipsos UK (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Behaviour Change: What role do we want governments to play? An international comparison
- 1. 1 Behaviour Change: What role do we want governments to play? An international comparison Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute © Ipsos MORI
- 2. 2 How do attitudes towards behaviour change policies vary around the globe? © Ipsos MORI
- 3. What people say and how they act is different but… 3 A measure which does not have public support is, in general, less likely to succeed House of Lords report on Behaviour Change © Ipsos MORI
- 4. 4 What we did © Ipsos MORI
- 5. We asked people in 24 countries… 5 Britain Belgium Poland Sweden Germany France Hungary Russia Canada Spain Italy USA China Japan Mexico South Korea Indonesia Saudi India Turkey Arabia Key: Brazil Australia 1,000 interviews 500 interviews Argentina South Africa © Ipsos MORI
- 6. …about their support for different degrees of government intervention in these areas: 6 FOOD RETIREMENT ENVIRONMENT SMOKING © Ipsos MORI
- 7. We looked at four degrees of Government intervention – and also asked about interventions against business 7 INFORMATION FORCE OF INTERVENTION Provide information about changing behaviour INCENTIVES Provide incentives to change behaviour RESTRICTIONS Make behaviour more expensive or difficult BAN OUTRIGHT Ban behaviour COMPANIES Make companies act to change behaviour © Ipsos MORI
- 8. Limitations of the data 8 Global @dvisor is conducted • As such, for developing nations the results are through an internet survey not representative of the in 24 countries country as a whole • Internet penetration by no means uniform • Results must be seen in this context • There may be bias in some countries where Internet is not felt to be private • Ecological data • Definitions will be different © Ipsos MORI
- 9. 9 Our findings © Ipsos MORI
- 10. …perhaps surprisingly, there is majority support for intervention across the board… 10 What, if anything, do you think government should do? (Average over all four policy areas) % Strongly support/tend to support FORCE OF INTERVENTION Provide information 92% Provide incentives 87% Make behaviour more expensive/ difficult 69% Ban behaviour 62% 0% Make companies act against behaviour 88% Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor © Ipsos MORI
- 11. 11 But people support different degrees of intervention in different policy areas… © Ipsos MORI
- 12. People want financial incentives to save for their pension, and 7 in 10 support being forced to save 12 Next, thinking about how people plan for retirement. What, if anything, do you think government should do? % Strongly support/tend to support Provide information 92% Provide incentives 90% Make pension scheme enrolment automatic 79% Make pension scheme enrolment mandatory 69% Make employers contribute to pension schemes 87% Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor © Ipsos MORI
- 13. Smoking: still low support for an outright ban, but banning in public places is largely accepted 13 Now thinking about smoking: What, if anything, do you think government should do? % Strongly support/tend to support Provide information 92% Incentivise people to stop smoking 82% Ban smoking in public places 80% Ban smoking altogether 52% Make tobacco companies invest against smoking 84% Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor © Ipsos MORI
- 14. There are exceptions to the hierarchy of public support 14 Firstly, thinking about what people choose to eat. What, if anything, do you think government should do? % Strongly support/tend to support Provide information about healthy eating 90% Provide incentives, such as health food vouchers 82% Make unhealthy foods more expensive 53% Ban unhealthy foods 60% Make companies promote healthy choices 88% Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor © Ipsos MORI
- 15. Similar story around environmental interventions 15 Now thinking about using the planet's resources in a sustainable way (i.e. in a way that protects the quality of life of future generations). What, if anything, do you think government should do? % Strongly support/tend to support Provide information 92% Make sustainable options less expensive 92% Make unsustainable products more expensive 63% Ban unsustainable products 68% Make companies be more sustainable 91% Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor © Ipsos MORI
- 16. 16 But we also gave people the opportunity to say whether the government should not get involved in their behaviour… © Ipsos MORI
- 17. Half still have a negative gut reaction to the “nanny state” 17 What, if anything, do you think government should do? (Average over all four policy areas) % Strongly support/tend to support Not get involved in what people choose to eat 53% Not get involved in what people choose to save for retirement 53% Not get involved in whether or not people choose to live sustainably 46% Not get involved in how people make decisions about smoking 46% Not get involved (average) 50% Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor © Ipsos MORI
- 18. Inconsistent views or a question of framing? 18 53% agreed that 69% agreed that “government “government should not get should change the involved in what law so that people choose to everyone has to save for enrol in a pension retirement” scheme” © Ipsos MORI 36%
- 19. 19 Support for the five degrees of intervention varies in different ways between countries © Ipsos MORI
- 20. Support for information is uniformly high (range = 16pp) 20 Government should provide information… (Average over all four policy areas) Tend to support/strongly support Indonesia 98% South Africa 98% China 97% Turkey 97% Saudi Arabia 95% India 94% South Korea 94% Mexico 93% Australia 93% Brazil 93% Russia 92% INFORMATION Hungary 92% Argentina 92% Canada 91% Belgium 91% Italy 91% Great Britain 90% Poland 90% Spain 90% Germany 88% France 85% Japan 85% Sweden 84% USA 82% Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor © Ipsos MORI
- 21. Support for outright prohibition shows the full extent of political diversity (range = 54pp) 21 Government should ban… (Average over all four policy areas) Tend to support/strongly support Saudi Arabia 87% India 87% Indonesia 86% China 84% Russia 75% Turkey 72% Mexico 69% Italy 68% South Korea 66% Poland 64% BAN OUTRIGHT Argentina 63% Brazil 63% Japan 62% South Africa 60% Hungary 56% Canada 53% Spain 53% Australia 52% France 52% Belgium 51% Germany 49% Great Britain 49% Sweden 43% USA 33% Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor © Ipsos MORI
- 22. Broad support for government intervention in business but price trade off not explored 22 Government should make companies… (Average over all four policy areas) Tend to support/strongly support Indonesia 97% China 97% Turkey 97% Saudi Arabia 94% India 94% Russia 93% Mexico 92% South Africa 92% Hungary 91% Brazil 90% France 90% Italy 90% Argentina 89% COMPANIES South Korea 86% Belgium 85% Australia 85% Canada 85% Poland 85% Great Britain 84% Germany 83% Spain 82% Japan 81% Sweden 80% USA 66% Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor © Ipsos MORI
- 23. 23 Specific questions really emphasise the difference between countries © Ipsos MORI
- 24. Cultural divide? The right to eat what I want (range = 68pp) 24 Government should introduce laws to ban unhealthy foods Tend to support/strongly support China 89% South Korea 89% Saudi Arabia 88% India 87% Indonesia 87% Turkey 87% Russia 86% Mexico 71% Japan 70% Argentina 68% OUTRIGHT BAN Italy 65% Spain 64% Poland 63% Hungary 55% Brazil 53% Germany 43% South Africa 42% Canada 41% Belgium 39% France 35% Sweden 35% Australia 33% Great Britain 33% USA 21% Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor © Ipsos MORI
- 25. 25 Now let’s investigate the patterns between countries… © Ipsos MORI
- 26. 26 Countries do not differentiate in a nuanced way between shoves: if you like one type of legislation then you’ll like another © Ipsos MORI
- 27. Strong correlation between support for banning and restricting 27 What, if anything, do you think government should do? (Average over all four policy areas) Strongly support/tend to support policy 90% SAUDI ARABIA INDIA INDONESIA 80% RUSSIA CHINA POLAND MEXICO ITALY 70% PATERNALISM BAN OUTRIGHT JAPAN TURKEY SOUTH KOREA AUSTRALIA CANADA BRAZIL 60% ARGENTINA FRANCE SPAIN SOUTH AFRICA HUNGARY 50% GERMANY BELGIUM LIBERALISM UK 40% SWEDEN UNITED STATES R² = 0.9357 30% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% RESTRICTIONS Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor © Ipsos MORI
- 28. 28 But by comparing other interventions we can observe more subtle characteristics… © Ipsos MORI
- 29. Subtle differences between nations emerge: authoritarians and incentivisers 29 Tend to support/strongly support for food and smoking (average) 90% SAUDI ARABIA CHINA INDIA 80% BANNING OVER INCENTIVES INDONESIA SOUTH KOREA TURKEY 70% RUSSIA BAN OUTRIGHT ITALY MEXICO 60% JAPAN ARGENTINA BRAZIL SPAIN POLAND 50% HUNGARY SOUTH AFRICA CANADA SWEDEN 40% UK BELGIUM GERMANY AUSTRALIA FRANCE 30% INCENTIVES OVER BANNING UNITED STATES R2 = 0.50 20% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% INCENTIVES Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor © Ipsos MORI
- 30. 30 But along with cultural differences, could prevalence of behaviour contribute to this variation? © Ipsos MORI
- 31. Prevalence of obesity does not appear a factor in the case of food 31 Government should introduce laws to ban unhealthy foods OUTRIGHT BAN R2 = 0.60 100% STRONGLY SUPPORT/TEND TO SUPPORT SOUTH KOREA 90% CHINA SAUDI ARABIA INDIA RUSSIA TURKEY 80% INDONESIA ITALY MEXICO 70% ARGENTINA JAPAN SPAIN POLAND 60% BRAZIL HUNGARY 50% SOUTH AFRICA GERMANY SWEDEN CANADA 40% BELGIUM UK 30% FRANCE AUSTRALIA UNITED STATES 20% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 % ADULTS WITH BMI ≥ 30 Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor; International Obesity Taskforce © Ipsos MORI
- 32. Prevalence of smoking appears to strengthen opinion – the power of nicotine 32 Government should introduce laws to ban…? OUTRIGHT BAN 90% STRONGLY SUPPORT/TEND TO SUPPORT SAUDI ARABIA Smoking Food 80% INDIA CHINA INDONESIA 70% BRAZIL ITALY SOUTH KOREA 60% MEXICO AUSTRALIA ARGENTINA JAPAN 50% SOUTH AFRICA CANADA SPAIN UK TURKEY RUSSIA 40% BELGIUM POLAND SWEDEN HUNGARY 30% UNITED STATES FRANCE GERMANY 20% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% % ADULT POPULATION SMOKING Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor; WHO World Health Statistics 2010 © Ipsos MORI
- 33. 33 Is wealth a factor? © Ipsos MORI
- 34. The wealthier the nation the less likely they are to favour government intervention 34 The government should make the behaviour more difficult/more expensive. (Average over all four policy areas) RESTRICTIONS 90% STRONGLY SUPPORT/TEND TO SUPPORT INDIA CHINA R2 = 0.70 85% INDONESIA 80% TURKEY RUSSIA SAUDI ARABIA SOUTH KOREA 75% BRAZIL MEXICO JAPAN 70% POLAND SOUTH AFRICA ITALY CANADA HUNGARY BELGIUM 65% ARGENTINA SPAIN AUSTRALIA UK 60% FRANCE SWEDEN 55% GERMANY 50% UNITED STATES 45% 40% 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 GDP PER CAPITA (PPP) (CURRENT INT'L $) Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor; International Monetary Fund 2010 © Ipsos MORI
- 35. A wealth paradox 35 High earners are more supportive of legislation than low earners % Support by Household Income RESTRICTIONS Low Medium High Food 50 53 56 Retirement 79 80 78 Environment 61 63 67 Smoking 76 80 83 Overall 66 69 71 © Ipsos MORI
- 36. 36 Might other factors explain these patterns? © Ipsos MORI
- 37. Apart from those with extreme confidence in government, there is little correlation 37 What, if anything, do you think government should do? Strongly support/tend to support. How confident do you feel in the way the Government of ... tackles the main problems facing the country? 90% HUNGARY RUSSIA INDIA 80% POLAND SWEDEN INDONESIA 70% JAPAN BAN OUTRIGHT ITALY SOUTH AFRICA BRAZIL ARGENTINA MEXICO 60% SOUTH KOREA SAUDI ARABIA CANADA CHINA UK AUSTRALIA 50% BELGIUM FRANCE GERMANY SPAIN 40% TURKEY R² = 0.2544 30% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, September 2010 (confidence), November 2010 (intervention) Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor © Ipsos MORI
- 38. Countries with a higher inequality of power more supportive of prohibitive legislation 38 The government should ban the behaviour. (Average across all policy areas) Nb. PDIs for China, Hungary, Poland and Russia are estimate values; there is currently no individual PDI for Saudi Arabia. OUTRIGHT BAN 90% STRONGLY SUPPORT/TEND TO SUPPORT INDIA CHINA INDONESIA 80% TURKEY ITALY SOUTH KOREA 70% MEXICO RUSSIA ARGENTINA POLAND BRAZIL 60% HUNGARY JAPAN SOUTH AFRICA AUSTRALIA FRANCE 50%GERMANY CANADA SPAIN BELGIUM UK 40% SWEDEN UNITED STATES R2 = 0.5832 30% 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 POWER DISTANCE INDEX Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010. Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor; Hofstede Cultural Dimensions © Ipsos MORI
- 39. 39 So what does this tell us? © Ipsos MORI
- 40. What have we learnt? 40 • What was striking was the extent to which people supported government intervention • Public acceptability tends to fall as more freedoms are lost with some exceptions • Clear and striking country differences • It is issue dependent to a point • Still a reaction to “nanny state” • Influence of wealth is not straightforward • Governmental system (power distance) may explain it • We haven’t analysed fully is the extent to which these policies already exist in countries • Definitions of government? © Ipsos MORI
- 41. Can measuring acceptability help determine where we are in a cycle? 41 Sufficient support to go ahead Fall-off as detail emerges Build-up of support PUBLIC SUPPORT as benefits appear Increasing support for general idea New idea, no justification Panic just before implementation TIME Goodwin P. (2006) Cycle of Public Acceptability © Ipsos MORI
- 42. What does level of support tell us? 42 • There have been interventions that have been successful without public support and vice versa • Acceptability is just one factor that needs to be considered • Consider public space smoking ban in China which is widely ignored • A better concept might be how “prepared” the public are which includes acceptability but also: • Recognition of an issue • Understanding benefits/scale of the problem • Belief in the effectiveness of the measure proposed • Level of opposition • Measuring acceptability should be seen as part of a cycle of change • All of the above and more need to be considered to increase the effectiveness of an intervention © Ipsos MORI
- 43. 43 Thank you © Ipsos MORI