The UK government received criticism for using behavioral science and psychology to guide its initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Behavioral science focuses on understanding how and why people act irrationally in order to design "nudge" interventions that subtly influence behavior. Examples of nudges included encouraging hand washing songs and alternative handshakes. While nudges can change behaviors with minimal disruption, experts worried about the UK's reliance on the idea of "behavioral fatigue," where compliance to interventions may fade over time. The UK has since shifted to a stricter "hard paternalism" strategy of lockdowns and social distancing in line with WHO recommendations, though it remains unclear if this change was too late.

1. Use of Behavioural
Sciences & Psychology
to Control Corona
Jayadeva de Silva
(Foot tap as an alternative to handshaking – A nudge technique)
The UK government’shandling of the novel corona virus pandemic has
come under serious criticism, not just from citizens, but from leaders
around the world. One of the reasons for this is becausethegovernment
is using behaviouralscience to decidehow to coordinateitsresponseto
the pandemic.

2. According totheprinciplesof behaviouralscience, people don’t act
rationally. But if we can understand people’s actions, and how they act
irrationally, thenwe can interveneto changebehaviour. Such
interventionsaretypicallycalled “nudges”. These can bepowerful tools
for influencing how people behavebut with the added benefit of allowing
them to make their own choices. Nudgesusually offer positive
reinforcement or indirect suggestions that aim toinfluencedecision
making and behaviour in people.
Some examplenudgesin response to the novel corona virus
include singing happybirthday whilewashing your hands
https://www.facebook.com/jayadeva.desilva/videos/1015976602171611
0/
Or using funny alternative“handshakes”. (Example-Foot tap- seethe
photo above
These strategiesemphasisetheneed for good hygiene, and create
memorablerules of thumb which encouragepeople to participate.
If the promisesof behaviouralsciencecanbe believed, the UK
government’suse of it would potentiallyminimiseeconomic disruption
while still tackling thecrisis. Thisis because, in theory, behavioural
sciencecan achievedesirablebehaviourswithout significantlyimpacting
other day-to-dayactivities. However, the questionis whether in practice
behaviouralsciencetohelp mitigatedisaster.
BehaviouralScientistspromoting Nudgearguedthat behavioural
economicsresearch could be used to transform public policy. Nudges
would be cheap, effective, and minimallydisruptive. Thesearguments
won support from several governments, and nudges have subsequently
been used to encourage organdonation, retirement saving, and
reduced plastic bag usage.
Nudges, and thebehaviouralsciencewhich inspired them, facea lot of
criticism, evenwhen they’re not being used to tacklea globalpandemic.
But it’s also unfair to say it’s not sometimeseffective. For instance, in
2015 UK workplacepensions changed from being opt-into opt-out. This
“nudged” over 9 million UK employees to beginsaving for their
retirement, according toa 2017 report.
Using some behaviouralsciencetohelp tacklethe corona virus pandemic
may makesense, as Thaler has recently argued. For instance, Danish

3. supermarketshavestarted using floor signs at check-outs to encourage
customersto maintaina safe distancewhilepurchasing groceries. But
what has manyexpertsworried is the government’srelianceon the idea
of “behaviouralfatigue”.
No clear definition of behaviouralfatigueexists. But as best understood,
behaviouralfatigueistheidea that eventually people get bored of doing
one thing and start engaging inother, sometimesundesirable,
behaviours. For example, if people are placed in quarantine, theymay
initiallybe very compliant. But after some time, this compliancewill
wither away. And it may possibly happen – as the UK government
claims – at preciselythe moment it’s most needed. In SriLanka, The
Policehave arrested over 17,000 persons and have takenover 5000
vehicles in to their custodyfor alleged curfew violations. In some partsof
the country1 24 hour curfew is in force for over several consecutive
weeks
Manybehaviouralsciencestrategies, such asnudging, areclassified as
“soft paternalist interventions”. Thesestrategiestrytoincreasethe
welfare of a population, but aren’t so coerciveas to stop a person making
their own decisions. One famousexample is automaticallyregistering
people as organdonors, unless they choose otherwise. Thissmall change
cansignificantlyincreasethenumber of organdonors, while
maintaining freedom ofchoice.
By contrast, a banon the sale of a product – for example, limiting the
number of toilet rolls a single customer canbuy – would be a “hard
paternalist intervention”. Theinterventionisincreasing welfare(either
for an individual, or the population), and an individualcan’t domuch
about it.
By using behaviouralscience, theUK government chose a soft
paternalism approach. Thismayhavesome advantages, notablybeing
less disruptiveinthe short term to theeconomy and the lives of citizens.
However, accordingtothe World Health Organization, a hard
paternalism strategyofsocial distancingand lockdowns, coupled with
mass testing and investment inmedicalinfrastructure, would bebetter.
The UK government’ssoft paternalism strategyaimed tocontrolthe
virus without incurringthesamecosts and disruptionsasother
countries. Though thenovel corona virus pandemic hasput behavioural
scienceto the test, the UK government has sincechanged itsstrategy.
The government has now imposed stricter rules to control the spread of

4. the virus. Whether changing toa “hard paternalist”approach willwork –
or if it wastoo late – yet remainsuncertain.