Bitescize is our series of interviews, where top academics and practitioners will be answering our questions on #BehavioralScience, #Misinformation and #StratComms 👀.

For the first Bitescize of the year, we talked to Dr Alexandra Petrache, applied behavioural scientist at @ Behavioural Science and me and neuroscientist. Alexandra told us about her passion for understanding human behaviour, and her vast experience in all things behaviour change and healthcare. You can listen to her podcast here: Behavioural science and me

Who are you?

I am an applied behavioural scientist and a neuroscientist. I love storytelling, arts and sciences, and I am driven by purposeful work. 

How did you get into Behavioural Science?

Up until recently I thought that my interest in behavioural science started around high school, when I began to read behavioural science literature. However, I realise that it had started as an even earlier age, maybe when I was a child and put clear labelling on the recycling and waste bins in my neighbourhood, wanting to make sure that the different types of waste were clearly indicated. You can hear more about this in the first episode of my podcast, “Behavioural Science and me”.  

What are you working on right now?

Just before writing this I had finished a proposal for a public health project concerning vaccinations and ways in which healthcare professionals communicate with their patients about vaccinations. 

What do you like most about what you do?

Honestly? The fact that I am able to do it – the fact that I am able to work to better understand people and why we do the things we do, as well as what works for us. I love the breadth of projects I can get involved in: from improving clinical trial experience, to marketing campaigns, or understanding drivers and barriers to treatments in a rare disease. That’s because I look to spot opportunities for behavioural science everywhere and I work to truly understand a problem before diving into how to solve it. This means work is never boring!

What role is there for communications in changing behaviour?

A vital role. To be effective, communications need to take into account the particular context of the behaviour that needs to change, and the influences on it, be it internal or external. The channel of communication is extremely important. It is fascinating to see how people from different groups (e.g., culture) use and spread communications.

They can be a tool for good and, as we have seen, a tool for evil, as well, and in the digital age, ill-devised miscommunications can spread very fast. That’s why we have a duty to, as much as possible, put out communications rooted in fact and in context.

On the flip side, a company looking to design effective communications should absolutely involve a behavioural scientist to carry out a thorough analysis on what is likely to resonate, why, how, who the messenger should be, etc. And to do some testing, if possible.  

If you could work on / research any topic what would it be and why?

I would like to merge my passion for healthcare and sustainability with my support for social justice. Perhaps looking at how accelerated climate change affects health inequitably, or how mis- and dis- information (especially via digital means) breaks communities and what repercussions there are. I am working on a podcast episode in this area. 

What is your favourite behavioural science paper/book/resource and why?

Everything that comes out of the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change and the United Nations. The resources are clear, comprehensive, and they build a feeling of purpose. 

Who do you think is interesting in the general field?

This is a very difficult question, as I have connected with and follow the careers of so many interesting behavioural scientists. Purely filtered through my appreciation of the COM-B model and the Behavioural Change Wheel, I would say Professor Susan Michie from UCL. 

There are others I appreciate, as well, for various reasons: Natalia Le Gal (for her cool behavioural science-themed cartoons), Cláudia Simão (for sharing so many free resources), Massimo Ingegno for his interesting work on the MakeItToolkit. 

What haven’t we asked you that we should have?

What the biggest challenge for behavioural science is. I would love to know the reader’s opinion.  

Who is one person that we can speak to for our next interview and if you could ask them one question, what would it be?

Can I give you two people? Jessica Walburn (IQVIA) and Katy Irving (HRW). I’d love to ask both of them where they see themselves in 5-10 years, from the perspective of working in behavioural science. 

The post BiteSCize with Alexandra Petrache appeared first on Lynn.

Bitescize is our series of interviews, where top academics and practitioners will be answering our questions on #BehavioralScience, #Misinformation and #StratComms 👀.

For the first Bitescize of the year, we talked to @janinatuuli who is an applied behavioural scientist working across a range of projects in the public and private sectors. Janina told us about her experience in the field and her broad range of interests, including how to combine #Behaviorchange frameworks with other disciplines.

Who are you?

I’m interested in helping people enhance their decision-making and impact through behavioural science. My work mainly involves providing behavioural science support on consultancy projects across public and private sectors, currently on a freelance basis. This includes systematically analysing challenges to identify desired behaviours, understanding the barriers hindering the target group from performing these behaviours and developing contextual solutions that meaningfully overcome these barriers. Outside of work, I enjoy spending time outdoors and being active, particularly hiking, tennis and walking my dog.

How did you get into Behavioural Science?

For me it started with the book Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. I first heard about it while studying A-level Economics and immediately bought it. Around that time I had a part-time job manning the turnstiles at a theme park which gave a lot of down time to chat with colleagues. I found myself drawn to regularly sharing the insights I learned from the book with my colleagues as I found them so fascinating – why do we often systematically make errors in our judgments? Why does the framing of choices make such a difference to our decisions? That’s when I realised I found something that sparked my interest in a unique way. 

It was, however, my undergraduate placement year at GSK which really shifted my perspective, thanks to two incredibly inspiring behavioural scientists in the Behavioural Ethics team, Dr Amanda Bunten and Dr Matt Rand. Joining their behavioural science network and capability-building workshops made me realise that I wanted to focus on learning how to apply behavioural science to real-world issues. That placement had a big impact on me, and I decided to pursue a Master’s in Behaviour Change at UCL. The programme’s systematic, evidence-based and interdisciplinary approach to understanding behaviour and developing interventions drew me to it and continues to underpin my work today.

What are you working on right now? 

Currently, I am providing support on a variety of projects, ranging from developing a behavioural science training programme for non-specialists to collaborating with researchers on academic papers. It is also a pleasure to be helping share career insights from practitioners and academics through the interview series ‘Insider Insights: Careers in Behavioural Science’, for students and recent graduates interested in careers in the field. 

What do you like most about what you do?

My work offers an opportunity to work with diverse clients across sectors and apply behavioural science to a wide range of challenges. I enjoy how intellectually stretching this environment is but most of all I enjoy working within creative, communicative, quality-driven and teamwork-oriented teams. It’s incredibly fulfilling to work together to make a positive impact through the application of academic insights and methods and I consider the opportunity to work with people like them to be one of the greatest joys of my work. 

What role is there for communications in changing behaviour?

To me, communications can serve like a GPS for behaviour change in the sense that it can guide people towards an action, explain the reasons behind it and encourage that important first step. I think coronavirus demonstrated to many of us how powerful a tool communications can be – trying to help someone to adopt a new behaviour, such as wearing a mask in social situations, we could just tell them what to do, but what if they don’t know why it is important, don’t believe it’s worth the effort or aren’t sure how to go about it? Communications had a huge role to play in building the knowledge, skills and motivation needed for behaviour change. 

A guide that helped me understand how to practically apply behavioural science to communication campaigns is The Principles of Behaviour Change Communications – GCS. 

Beyond this, many of us learn about the world from the people around us and historically stories have been a main way of sharing information. The power of storytelling as a method for driving behaviour change particularly fascinates me.

If you could work on / research any topic what would it be and why?

I am interested in leveraging behavioural insights to address challenges related to environmental sustainability. I am currently dipping my toes into a related space by contributing to academic papers examining how our relationship and interactions with nature relate to outcomes such as improved wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. With rapid urbanisation and environmental degradation, there are increasingly challenges related to environmental sustainability as well as human well-being so, while I am interested in applying behavioural science to a range of challenges, this is a “big question” topic where I would love to contribute understanding and solutions.

What is your favourite behavioural science paper/book/resource and why?

While the Behaviour Change Wheel guide by Dr. Lou Atkins, Prof. Robert West and Prof. Susan Michie was a foundational read that inspired me to pursue further academic study, since graduating I have been interested in is exploring how we can combine behavioural frameworks with other disciplines, such as service design, to generate a more thorough understanding of a problem space and design improved solutions. One paper in this area is ‘Align and Combine, Customer Journey Mapping and COM-B analysis to Aid Decision-making during the Design Process’ by Elizarova and Kahn (2018). It is a concise and accessible introduction to bridging behavioural science and service design.

Who do you think is interesting in the general field?

There are several people I find interesting, such as Katy Milkman, Amy Bucher and Aline Holzwarth. I can recommend the following sources, alongside this interview series, which help me learn about interesting people in the field:

1. Bescy run regular online events dedicated to sharing insights, tools and strategies,

and connecting applied behavioural science enthusiasts and experts. 

2. Women in Behavioural Science who provide opportunities for knowledge sharing, skill development and connecting with others working in the field, regardless of gender.
3. Money On The Mind – Merle van den Akker’s series interviewing prominent people in the field.

What haven’t we asked you that we should have?

Great question! Thinking back to a year ago when I was a student, I would have loved to ask my future self “What skills would be helpful to start developing now to prepare for working in an applied setting?”.

Who is one person that we can speak to for our next interview and if you could ask them one question, what would it be?

Based on his interview here, I would love to ask Steve Wendel “Where do you think the most promising opportunities are for combining behavioural science with systems analysis to address systemic issues?”

The post BiteSCize with Janina Tuuli appeared first on Lynn.

Who are you?

My name is Kai Ruggeri. I am a professor of behavioral science and public policy, based at Columbia University in the Mailman School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management. By training, I am a social psychologist with a strong emphasis on large-scale, quantitative methods. I have also worked in the private sector, in international governmental organizations, and served in the military, so my professional experience in applying behavioral science is broad.

How did you get into Behavioural Science?

Initially, I just found psychology to be a fascinating topic – I hadn’t been sure what to study in college and kept changing my degree. Then I took a psychology class and couldn’t put the textbook down. Once I settled into the program, I had an amazing statistics professor that changed my entire trajectory. That led to an incredible opportunity to go abroad, and I left the US for Belfast, Northern Ireland, to do a PhD trying to understand why people really dislike statistics, probabilities, and uncertainty.

During that work, many times I got a common reaction when I told people what I was studying. First, they would usually say something like “Yes, that sounds like me!” or “I was one of the rare ones that liked my stats class.” But second, they would normally indicate they saw no real-world value in the work. At that time, I couldn’t quite articulate how or why it mattered, and that led me to explore working on a number of different major topics, ranging from healthcare to education to economic development. But this was before Richard Thaler and Daniel Kahneman had become household names, so people were still pretty confused why a psychologist was working in economics or public policy.

What are you working on right now?

My primary research focuses on what drives the best outcomes for people in terms of health and wealth. We use a frame known as positive deviance to study a range of behaviors and their (potentially) linked outcomes. What this means is that we look at the most positive outliers from groups that are typically disadvantaged, don’t have the best outcomes, or otherwise face serious limitations. Rather than ask why these groups are doing poorly (which is what most people focus on, so there’s no shortage of work there), we focus on what seems to make these individuals do so well. Is it good choices? Is it better opportunities around them? Luck? Education? Personality? Hard work?

So far, we’ve looked at both basic science, such as how cognitive biases might impact outcomes, and more applied questions, like why do some people get an annual flu shot when most people in their community don’t? Or broader ones, like why are some people from low-income backgrounds continually moving up the economic ladder while other people with the same background are treading water or getting worse? We do this work in controlled settings as well as with institutional partners from financial and healthcare institutions.

What do you like most about what you do?

I love that my work is both real and also scientific. In other words, what we do – it matters today, to real people, to real institutions. But also, we don’t narrow our work to behaviors that may be irrelevant in the future or that don’t translate to other contexts. We have foundational scientific approaches that can advance understanding of human behavior. We’ve been able to validate major behavioral constructs in a time when so much in psychology has been called into question, while also being at the front of publishing work that showed no effect. But that no-effect work was actually hugely informative because it made clear that, while cognitive biases have serious implications for behaviors, they don’t alone explain broader economic outcomes. I love that our work can approach both of these.

What role is there for communications in changing behaviour?

Without a communication strategy, there are few ways to implement any meaningful insights from behavioral science. Even if you don’t think of a line painted down the middle of a motorway as communicating, it very much is: by signalling to drivers that they need to limit themselves to a specific space, hundreds of millions of lives have been saved. In a new era of technological advances, smart devices, and rapid information transmission, we see the exact same sort of thinking being critical to implementing everything from optimizing how much people put into their savings account to how early hospitals should send text messages to remind patients about upcoming appointments. However, I never like to frame this as “changing behaviors” – instead, our work actively focuses on going from understanding (good, bad, otherwise) to informing; change should be left to individuals.

If you could work on / research any topic what would it be and why?

Exactly what I’m working on! I’m thankful to have an employer that enthusiastically supports the work that I do, both in the way it contributes to theory and has real-world impact. I want to keep expanding it, primarily in terms of real-world testing and by looking at more specific groups. For example, we are increasingly working with financial institutions to look at specific employment groups, like contractors (who earn high wages when working but experience regular gaps), gig workers, and recent college graduates with good incomes but high debt. These are increasingly common financial groups and their behaviors are both key to economic stability for themselves, their families, and their communities, while also informing a lot in the way of relevant (good and bad) financial choices.

Who do you think is interesting in the general field?

All the work that Abigail Sussman is doing in Chicago excites me. From her work a few years ago on credit card choices to her more recent/forthcoming work on behavior after losing work, all of them have many angles that apply across behavioral sciences. (I also think that Sarah Ashcroft-Jones, a recent PhD graduate, is doing great work, but I may be biased…)

Who is one person that we can speak to for our next interview and if you could ask them one question, what would it be?Abigail Sussman from Chicago – ask her to speak about her new work on job loss and decision-making!

The post BiteSCize with Kai Ruggeri appeared first on Lynn.

The post #ReadyFor20mph – Welsh Government appeared first on Lynn.

Who are you?

My name is Dr Michael Hattersley. I’m from London, United Kingdom. I’m a postdoctoral researcher in Psychology at the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava, Slovakia.

How did you get into Behavioural Science?

As a child, I was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. During my high school years, I was treated differently by other kids and I never really understood why. So, I gradually got into reading about psychology as a way of trying to understand that, and to understand that part of myself better. At 16, I got the chance to study Psychology directly, as part of my school curriculum. I did not find as many answers about myself as I wanted, but I did encounter psychology as a science and as a way of asking questions about how people work. I have been hooked ever since! 

What are you working on right now? 

Right now, my main research focus is on the psychology of belief in conspiracy theories. In particular, I am focusing on how people who hold such beliefs interact with and use new information. 

Most of my past work has looked at the quantity of information. Imagine, for example, that you’re planning a trip, and you find a hotel that you think you like, but you opt to check the reviews and decide “Yes or no”, based on what they say. But there are over 300 reviews for this hotel and you’re not going to read them all, right? The question is how many you want to read. Maybe you read just a few. Or perhaps you go for 15 to 20. Or you could be more moderate, 8 to 10. How many reviews until you decide to take or pass on the hotel? How many units of data do you need to form a conclusion?

This is what we have measured in relation to people with conspiracy beliefs using sampling games. So far, we’ve found that people who believe in conspiracy theories rely on smaller samples of data when choosing a conclusion. Now we’re moving beyond that to see under what circumstances that finding holds or breaks. Does it hold cross-culturally, in different information environments? Does it hold when we directly manipulate the quality of information? These are important questions, because changing people’s minds about conspiracy theories will ultimately require giving them information in some form. So, it is useful to have a baseline on how such people use information in the first place.

What do you like most about what you do?

There is always room to be creative. For one, whatever your interests may be, if you can come up with a question to ask about it, then you can almost certainly run a study on it. Naturally, that is how my field started, because at some point somebody said, “hey, what are the correlates of belief in conspiracy theories?”. That seems like an obvious question now, especially since 2016 when the Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump illustrated just how pernicious misinformation can be, but in the 2000’s and the 90’s, it was less so. For another, once you get beyond the questions you are interested in, you also have a lot of flexibility with methods. And then, you have even more room for flexibility with your interpretations, if you have ideas then they will get space to develop. In both questions and answers, the idea space is enormous and there is a lot of room for independent thought.

In that sense, it also helps that I am part of a developing topic of research. The psychology of conspiracy theories is a relatively young field, most research and insights have come in the past 20-30 years or so. This means that there is still lots of room to explore and try new things.

What role is there for communications in changing behaviour?

I think that communication plays a huge role. Most ordinary people usually interact in good faith with the information they are provided. Of course, that is not true for everyone: some people interact with the data in bad faith for personal gain. Others might be incapable of interacting appropriately with the data due to cognitive or psychiatric impairments. But most ordinary people interact in good faith with the available data, and this means that their beliefs and in turn their behaviours are ultimately a consequence of the information environment they are in.

Where this becomes problematic is that information environments differ wildly from society to society, culture to culture. Put bluntly, sometimes the information environment is just poor, and in those cases, people’s beliefs and behaviours are going to reflect that and this will cause problems. Think of someone who grows up in a fundamentalist Christian household in the rural US, someone who never leaves their state. Maybe nobody in your neighbourhood or school believes in evolution, and some might even say with a straight face that the Earth is flat. If that’s the information you are working with, then the rational response is to believe—wrongly—that evolution is a myth, because that conclusion maximises the likelihood of the information you have.

For a more global example, consider Russia, a country which maintains an iron grip on its media. If your main source of news and information about the world was Russia Today, then all your information will be pro-Putin and anti-West. People who are rational and interact with their information in good faith will nonetheless end up believing in bad things, because of an impoverished information environment.

So, it is vital that we get communication right, that we give people good information, communicate it clearly, and also that we equip people to know how best to use information.

If you could work on / research any topic what would it be and why?

Other than my current topic, of course, I would have loved to dive into political science more generally. Naturally, my research topic brushes up closely with politically relevant phenomena, especially in recent years, but I have always come at that from a social cognition perspective. I would have enjoyed some more direct contact with political science and with variables like actual voting behaviour.

Another topic that I love reading about is the psychology of religion. This was one of my earliest research interests and I even did my M.Sc. project on the evaluation of religious arguments (vs. non-religious ones). Initially, I was going to do my Ph.D. on religious cognition, but I ended up studying conspiracy beliefs instead. Nonetheless, it’s an exciting topic that I have some unfinished business with, and I would love the chance to return to it one day. 

What is your favourite behavioural science paper/book/resource and why?

Tough to select just one! But one book that was a big influence on my thinking—especially as a Ph.D. student—was The Mind Club by Daniel Wegner and Kurt Gray. I love this book for two reasons. The first reason is simple: I quite like the content! I think it tells a nice and parsimonious story of moral judgement. It is quite accessible for lay readers and easy to understand, and it connects very well with real world phenomena. The book and its underlying theory have their critics and are not perfect, and there are popular alternatives (e.g., Moral Foundations Theory), but I think the general principles are sound.

The second reason I love this book is that it inspired me as a behavioural scientist to engage in more theory. Empirical data is necessary and obviously a defining pillar of science, but if you want to translate that data into real-world impact, then you need theory, an idea, a “How?” and a “Why?” to accompany the “What?”. That can be hard to do: empirical work feels more secure because your numbers are right there, your effects are significant. But theory involves putting your thoughts and ideas out there, which means you could be ripped to shreds. I have encountered some colleagues with this “theory-phobia”, poo-pooing on other theories for being the stupidest thing on the planet.

But they never wanted to put forward alternative ideas, perhaps because they feared the same ridicule that they dealt out to other theories, so they stayed in their comfort zone. But imagine if Wegner and Gray had been as reluctant with their own theory. Imagine if those ideas never made it out of their lab. Agree or disagree with their ideas if you want, but we are still better off for having those ideas out there in our collective intellectual space. At worst, it was a bad idea that might inspire a better one, and at best it is a damn good theory. This book inspired me to do the same with my own “Overfitting” account of conspiracy belief, and to be a little less risk averse with my own ideas, instead of playing it safe.

Behavioural science looks at misinformation from the lens of human behaviour. What is one step we can take to protect ourselves from the impact of misinformation?

I will give you two steps. Firstly, do not underestimate how pervasive these beliefs can be. Conspiracy theories and misinformation are not unique to extremists, people with low intelligence, or people with psychiatric disorders. They are geographically, historically, and socially widespread, and even ordinary people can fall prey to them. Do not make the mistake of assuming that you are immune.

Secondly and perhaps more importantly, look after yourself! Specifically, look after your mental health. Always good advice for many reasons, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is also a good defence against misinformation and conspiracy theories. Such claims are most appealing to us when we are not doing very well. We all go through tough times in our lives, we all sometimes get scared or upset or afraid. In those moments, misinformation and conspiracy theories are like the “Miracle Cure”, the “epistemic snake oil” which falsely promises to explain away all your uncertainty, only to leave you with more.

The importance of mental health is even more strongly illustrated when you look at the profile of a person that is attracted to conspiracy theories. Anxiety, depression, and psychosocial stress are all positively correlated with endorsement of conspiracy theories. People are also often attracted to conspiracy theories during hard times, such as during bereavement or job loss. The pattern is fairly clear: people are attracted to these ideas when they are not doing so well. And that makes sense. To me, people who believe conspiracy theories never really strike me as the happiest of people, and I worry that it makes them prime targets for misinformation and conspiracy theories. Look at Alex Jones as an example: have you ever seen him genuinely happy? Seems to me that he’s always angry and always shouting! Use your indoor voice, dude. 

So, take care of yourselves! Go for a walk, try meditation, see a therapist or talk to a friend or family, make sure you are sleeping enough… and you will find that there is no need for the misinformation to fulfil. 

What is the role of communications in tackling misinformation?

As I said earlier, communication is vital because ultimately, people can only work with the information that they are given. So, it’s important to ensure that people are given clear and digestible information. This is especially true in countries like Russia, where the information environment is rigidly controlled and where it may be as simple as making the facts available.

But in cultures like the UK, USA, Germany, it gets more complicated: the facts are already available and accessible to people. People are believing conspiracy theories despite the facts. The issue is not too little information but too much: social media bombards people with conflicting conclusions all the time. For every factual argument you make that climate change is real (for example), there will be another 2 or 3 counter arguments suggesting that it is a hoax. Eventually, the facts get shouted down. So, it is not just about combating lies with truths, but about equipping people to tell the difference themselves.

To that end, basic information literacy is hugely important. People need basic training in things like fact checking, source evaluation, attention to fallacy, and so on. There is some great academic work in this space on what researchers call “prebunking”: instead of arguing directly against the conspiracy theory or fake news, you pre-warn people about misinformation. For instance, you might tell people about the nefarious motives of people (e.g., oil companies, the Kremlin) who want you to believe in misinformation. Or you might draw attention to the specific style of poor argumentation used by such people (e.g., when anti-vaxxers wheel out a fake doctor to talk about the dangers of vaccines). You could argue similarly with basic scientific literacy, too (e.g., teach people about hypothesis testing, the importance of evidence, expert endorsement), as well as economic literacy (e.g., how money works) or political literacy (e.g., how your country’s political system works). That way, when we say for example, “the evidence overwhelmingly supports the efficacy of vaccines”, that argument actually gets heard and understood. 

Who do you think is interesting in the general field?

Within the study of misinformation, Sander van der Linden at Cambridge is doing interesting work on interventions against misinformation, including in relation to prebunking. His recent book “Foolproof” is a great read as well, I would highly recommend it. In relation to conspiracy theories, Jan-Willem van Prooijen in Amsterdam is worth checking out, for anyone interested in that topic.

What haven’t we asked you that we should have?

Perhaps one thing I could mention is the consequences of belief in misinformation and conspiracy theories. It is very easy to underestimate this, because some of these ideas are so ridiculous that it is hard to imagine people taking them or their adherents seriously. Most of us probably know someone who believes in these kinds of things, and we never imagine it being problematic. Maybe it’s Christmas Dinner and old Uncle Andrew is in the corner ranting about how the moon landings were staged. So, we think, “He’s harmless, what could possibly go wrong? What’s the harm?”

But conspiracy theories and misinformation are very harmful indeed and they have consequences for their adherents. I’ve already mentioned mental health outcomes, which such beliefs can only make worse. They can also lead to alienation and division, people have lost friends, partners, and familial relationships because they fell too deep into the rabbit hole. Then there are consequences for non-believers, too. Vaccine conspiracy theories are a particularly nasty example because they compromise our society’s collective ability to combat the spread of infectious diseases. Conspiracy theories also give rise to violence. Look at Anders Breivik in Norway, who gunned down teenagers in the name of Islamophobic “Great Replacement” conspiracy theories. I could go on.

Maybe some isolated conspiracy theories can feel like a bit of fun. Is Elvis secretly alive in a shed in Swindon? Are FC Barcelona secretly buying off referees? We all love a mystery. But for your own sake, at least, don’t take it too far.

Who is one person that we can speak to for our next interview and if you could ask them one question, what would it be?

Dr Simon Myers at the University of Warwick. A fantastic researcher in moral psychology, a very robust scientist, and someone with infectious enthusiasm for his work. Simon’s doing some very cool things and has some fresh perspectives on his field. He also has a very interdisciplinary mind, he is incredibly knowledgeable in other fields both within and beyond behavioural science, particularly in philosophy and epistemology. He is also a good friend who I have been lucky to know for several years, so I have gotten to ask him a lot of fun questions. I’m sure you’ll have as much fun with your own questions as I have!

The post BiteSCize with Dr Michael Hattersley appeared first on Lynn.

Bitescize is our series of interviews, where top academics and practitioners will be answering our
questions on #behavioralscience, #misinformation and #strategiccommunications.

This week we talked to Jens Koed Madsen, who is an Assistant Professor at the London School of
Economics and Political Science, and a member of COHESYS group at the University of Oxford. Jens
told us about his work on understanding the processes that lead to people holding different beliefs, and
how this influences our understanding about how to tackle misinformation effectively.

Who are you?

My name is Jens Koed Madsen. I’m an assistant professor in cognitive psychology at the
London School of Economics and Political Science. In my work, I’m interested in how people
form their beliefs and understanding of the world and how this may influence (or not) how
people behave and respond to interventions. I am particularly interested in information systems
as well as environmental sustainability.

How did you get into Behavioural Science?

It was a gradual process – my undergraduate degree is in Rhetorical Theory (the art of
persuasion studied in Humanities). This sparked an interest in how people see evidence,
process arguments, and to what degree they use this to influence their behaviours. Via cognitive
psychology during my PhD at UCL and first post-doc Birkbeck, I eventually became interested in
how people’s subjective understanding of the world may impact behavioural modelling. For
example, during my time at the POSEIDON project at Oxford, where I worked on fisheries and
sustainability with colleagues from biology, economics and more.

One of the things I appreciate a lot about my department at LSE is the interchange between
foundational theoretical questions (e.g., can we model belief revision using Bayesian
computational models) and what this means for application (e.g., what does it mean for
intervention design if people are Bayesian reasoners). The department’s mantra is ‘from the lab
to the world and back again’, which I think is a lovely way to work. So, I went gradually from a
pure humanities exploration of persuasion via computational modelling during my PhD to now
where I work with an interchange between computational models, qualitative interviews, agent-
based modelling, and theory to explore how people form their beliefs about the world and
when/if/how much this influences their behaviours.

What are you working on right now?

I’m working on different projects, but as an example, I am working with Lee de-Wit and David
Young from the University of Cambridge on belief revision and polarisation. We are working on
a model that describes people’s beliefs about dependencies (i.e., when people see reports from

multiple people, it matters a lot if they believe these sources are related to each other, they
make use of the same data, or have some structural biases that influence how they interpret
information). Our initial results are promising, which is intriguing, as it suggests that some part of
polarisation may be explainable via rational processes.

What do you like most about what you do?

There are many wonderful things about the role of an academic – engaging with clever
students, meeting and collaborating with interesting colleagues, writing papers, and more. One
element of my work that I never take for granted is the freedom to pursue projects that I
personally find interesting.

What role is there for communications in changing behaviour?

I think this very much depends on the behaviour in question. If the behaviour is deeply rooted in
your beliefs about the world, information campaigns and communication is naturally going to
matter a lot. For example, some studies show the influence of misinformation with regards to
COVID-19 vaccination as well the role of subjective beliefs in intentions to take vaccinations.
However, for other behaviours, it matters a lot less what you believe. For example, my personal
beliefs about the upcoming presidential campaign in the USA matter very little, as I am ineligible
to vote. In that case, the link between belief and behaviour is tenuous at best. As for many
cases, I don’t think there is a one-effect-size that covers all behaviours but that it is incredibly
topic-dependent.

If you could work on / research any topic what would it be and why?

One of my big interests at the moment is to explore the theoretical, computational, and empirical
challenges in marrying freedom of speech and healthy information systems that diminishes the
impact of malevolent disinformation while allowing for earnest disagreement. I think this is a
central question for many democracies and it is not a trivial issue to understand how to structure
democratically beneficial information systems.

What is your favourite behavioural science paper/book/resource and why?

There are of course numerous that I could have chosen, but I’ll name three books that have
influenced me in different ways throughout my academic career. Aristotle’s Rhetoric because it
illustrates the complexities of persuasion beyond simple information transmission theory.
Bayesian Rationality by Nick Chater and Mike Oaksford because it showed me how subjective
probability calculus can be used as an empathetic approach to exploring why some people
respond differently to the same message. And Complex Adaptive Systems by Scott Page and
John Miller for discussing how complexity theory can be integrated within computational social
sciences.

Behavioural science looks at misinformation from the lens of human behaviour. What is
one step we can take to protect ourselves from the impact of misinformation?

There are a few – one prominent approach is simply to educate ourselves more to be aware of
the techniques that people use to misinform. This comes from people like Sander van der
Linden, Jon Roozenbeek, and others who are developing interventions akin to media literacy
and critical reasoning skills. The goal here is to train yourself to spot persuasive techniques that
are often used in misinformation so that you are less swayed by these in the future. Individual-
based interventions are probably not sufficient by themselves, but being more aware that
misinformation may reside in your own media consumption and being mindful of these
techniques are good starts. People seem to believe that misinformation is a problem for other
people, so self-reflection is a welcome element.

What is the role of communications in tackling misinformation?

As above, I suspect this depends a bit on the misinformation in question and when in the
information process you are. That is, misinformation about historical facts (e.g., holocaust
denialism) may require entirely different strategies than misinformation pertaining to current
debates (e.g., climate change denialism). I think we may need more community- and trust-
building to supplement information campaigns, as information alone is insufficient if the
recipients believe you are untrustworthy or in collusion. That is, I think we need a better
understanding of the process of reasoning and information search to build better and tailored
interventions.

Who do you think is interesting in the general field?

Within the field of reasoning and computational modelling of information and communication, my
PhD supervisor Nick Chater is a stellar researcher. His approach to reasoning and
communication has influenced my thinking a lot – to take a process-oriented view that seeks to
explore how and why people may reasonably disagree despite having access to the same
information rather than just looking at output-oriented models that may explore the fact that two
communities of peoples disagree rather than exploring possible reasoning strategies that may
engender this disagreement.

What haven’t we asked you that we should have?

There are different things to consider, but one is how we can foster a more productive
relationship between researchers, governments, and media outlets/social media platforms to
foster a health information environment that allows for dissent, disagreement, and satire, but
which simultaneously diminishes the roles of malevolent disinformation or deliberate hoaxes
designed to divide or profit from bogus products.

Who is one person that we can speak to for our next interview and if you could ask them
one question, what would it be?

Jon Roozenbeek from Kings College, London would be a great person to interview, as I really
appreciate his view on combating and engaging with misinformation.

The post BiteSCIze with Jens Koed Madsen appeared first on Lynn.

Bitescize is our series of interviews, where top academics and practitioners will be answering our questions on #behavioralscience, #misinformation and #strategiccommunications 👀.

This week we talked to Magda Osman, who impressively heads the Research and Analysis Centre for Science and Policy at the University of Cambridge and is also a Professor of Policy Impact at the University of Leeds.

Who are you?

I am a cognitive psychologist, though am variously referred to as a decision scientist or behavioural scientist. I hold a position as Principal Research Associate in the Judge Business School, University of Cambridge and Prof. of Policy Impact at Leeds Business School, University of Leeds. 

How did you get into Behavioural Science?

I started to read books on psychology when I was quite young. That isn’t to say I had an amazing grasp of what I was reading, just that I was inspired by what I read and knew then that I wanted to make a career as a researcher in the area. My second big interest while I was studying for my degree in experimental psychology was philosophy of science. I’m still very much a tourist, but at the time, and till now, it has helped shape how I think about the limitations of measurement and how to remain productively skeptical.

What are you working on right now? 

Because of my interest in uncertainty, I look at ways of extending it into the domain of risk analysis. I have been focused on understanding how practitioners can best interpret statistics to inform risk assessment and management in different applied domains. The other area of work that I am now concentrating on is how to improve the way decisions are made in groups. There are lots of problems generated from group dynamics that end up stifling the type of productive disagreement that can support good decisions. My efforts, along with the people I’m lucky to work with, is to examine how to help achieve quality decisions through the integration of diverse viewpoints. Finally, I have revived one of my main all time interests which is the relationship between manipulation and free choice. The focus for me is to understand how people make sense of different types of manipulative tactics on their choices. There are times when we treat manipulation as benign and other times as threatening to our ability to freely choose. So the question I am focused on is what predicts the difference.  

What do you like most about what you do?

The thing I like most and find the most challenging is characterising a problem in the most accurate way possible. Thankfully I have a lot of clever people around me that I trust to help me do this, so I enjoy the collective effort in figuring out the right empirical questions to ask. 

What role is there for communications in changing behaviour?

It depends what context and what behaviour one is interested in changing. There are different channels for communicating, different motivations behind the communication, different types of relationships between the sender and receiver of a communication and so on. So, to understand what role communication has, or should have, in influencing behaviour, also invites questions around ethics. There is no way of escaping the topic of ethics because what behaviour the communication is designed to change depends on the end goal and who is ultimately benefitted from the change in behaviour.  

If you could work on / research any topic what would it be and why?

I am lucky that I can look at questions from a basic science perspective, and then complement that with an applied science perspective. Rather than wondering what things I could research on, I am often steered by real world problems that people come to me with. I think this is the most difficult thing I end up doing, not least because there is pressure to make sure that the translation from the lab to the wild needs to be precise to ensure that what is being proposed is relevant and useful.  

What is your favourite behavioural science paper/book/resource and why?

The most profound book that I read and keep going back to is The Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard. It was written in the 50’s and discusses the way psychology was used in marketing, advertising, and political campaigning at the time. It helps to put in context some of the issues that the discipline still faces today. 

Behavioural science looks at misinformation from the lens of human behaviour; what is one step we can take to protect ourselves from the impact of misinformation?

I’d say that the study of misinformation, disinformation and other variants such as fake news and deep fakes integrates work from several disciplines. This means that psychology doesn’t approach the topic in isolation, especially when thinking about how to apply insights to the real world. 

So, to the question, unfortunately the unsatisfying answer is that it depends on what context we are encountering distortions and inaccuracies in the information we are presented. In some cases, we already expect that there are things we will come across that are problematic, so we tend towards being skeptical or suspicious. This is already a form of protection. However there are many problematic areas where psychological science can help, especially when it comes to preparing younger adults in basic critical analytic skills which are essential in most walks of life. 

What is the role of communications in tackling misinformation?

We still have a long way to go. On a more basic level over the past 50 years the definition of misinformation has changed, so knowing how to tackle it requires some basic agreement on what it is. I have been focused on looking at how people view it and what their own experiences are when they encounter it. The interesting thing is that people have a variety of strategies they use, such as humour, sarcasm and irony as a form of error correction. The most illuminating of the strategies which I have found, and which signals me to what people appreciate a lot, is the opportunity to have open debates. There is a lot of rich information that can be drawn from the mechanisms people use to detect aspects of communication that they view as misinformation, and so this can be a good basis for knowing how to tackle it.

Who is one person that we can speak to for our next interview and if you could ask them one question, what would it be?

There is more than one. Matti Vuorre. He is at Tilburg University. He is doing some great stuff that challenges what we assume about online/virtual environments and the impact it has on us psychologically. I’d also suggest talking to Sarah Jenkins. She is at Leeds Business School. Her work on risk communication helps to highlight the pitfalls in the way crucial statistical information is communicated and how to address the pitfalls in practical ways. Wim De Neys. He is at the Sorbonne. His work on reasoning is fascinating as well as pioneering, and he has a lot of interesting things to say about how his research applies in complex everyday problems. 

The post BiteSCIze with Magda Osman appeared first on Lynn.

The post Mpox and conspiracy theories: Download appeared first on Lynn.

The post Mpox and conspiracy theories appeared first on Lynn.

Bitescize is our series of interviews, where top academics and practitioners will be answering our questions on #behavioralscience, #misinformation and #strategiccommunications 👀.

We resume our series with @Maria Lunetto. Maria told us about her past experience as a researcher, and the wide range of topics that she gets to work as a freelance applied behavioural scientist.

Who are you?

My name is Maria Lunetto. I am currently working as an applied behavioural scientist on a freelance basis. My previous experience includes roles as a researcher at UCL and a consultant at a behavioural science consultancy firm.

How did you get into Behavioural Science?

I completed my undergraduate studies in psychology in Berlin. While seeking a master’s program abroad, I discovered a specialisation in behaviour change, which opened up new possibilities for me. I knew I wanted a career in or related to psychology but was not interested in becoming a therapist or working in HR or marketing. During this time, I also interned at a consultancy that was a spin-off of the Max Planck Institute and co-founded by Gerd Gigerenzer. This experience introduced me to biases, heuristics, and the broader field of behavioural science.

What are you working on right now?

I recently finished projects related to cybersecurity and tourism. Currently, I am engaged in projects that span the entire process from research to prototyping and evaluation. In my projects I try to find a balance between diving deep into the subject matter while enabling quick iterations and fast learning from failures to allow for tangible results in a relatively short period. My clients also tend to be open to trying new methodologies such as behavioural systems mapping which we often explore together in collaborative workshops.

What do you like most about what you do?

I love that I get to work on a diverse range of behaviours. In my current role, proficiency in methodology and execution is more critical than being an expert in a single behavioural field. I also enjoy collaborating with clients, particularly those with backgrounds in related fields such as UX design or product design. The projects I work on are never a solo effort; they involve learning and growing with others.

What role is there for communications in changing behaviour?

Communication is a core element in changing behaviour, but it should not stand alone. Simply telling someone to change their behaviour is rarely effective. Of course, there are ways to enhance the impact of communication such as incorporating emotions by highlighting the emotional consequences of a behaviour, but the most successful behaviour change interventions combine multiple techniques beyond communication. For example, providing instructions on how to recycle correctly is a start, but offering separate bins and clear pictorial guides will significantly improve the intervention’s effectiveness.

If you could work on / research any topic, what would it be and why?

This is a tough one, especially because I enjoy working on different behaviours and becoming a mini-expert in each. However, I think I would return to researching sustainability in the urban context, a topic I explored during my time at UCL. I would love to work on a project based in Berlin, my hometown. This would allow me to leverage my local expertise while gaining a broader perspective as a researcher. I believe that the current approach in national and local politics often focuses on prohibiting behaviours rather than enabling them. As behavioural scientists we know that there are many smarter and more creative ways to promote eco-friendly behaviours that can be adjusted to the specific context.

What is your favourite behavioural science paper/book/resource and why?I try to keep up with various resources, but I still find the Behaviour Change Wheel guide to be a powerful tool to understand the process of behaviour change design. Although it may be somewhat outdated, “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman remains an incredible book that I recommend to anyone completely new to behavioural science. I remember reading it before starting my master’s and feeling incredibly curious about the field.

Who do you think is interesting in the general field?

Instead of naming an individual, I would highlight Nuance, a behavioural science collective. They consist of some brilliant people in the field who stay current with the latest topics and discussions. They also publish free content that I really enjoy reading.

What haven’t we asked you that we should have?

A good question to ask would be: “What is your advice for people starting out in the field?”My advice is to be persistent about pursuing a career in behavioural science. This might mean turning down a job that isn’t aligned with your career goals or convincing your boss to allocate more time for you to work on a behavioural science project within your company. I acknowledge that this advice comes from a privileged position; not everyone is able to turn down a job offer, move countries, or do an underpaid internship, but staying true to your aspirations is crucial – especially when you start building up your CV. Securing the first ‘real’ job is often the hardest part, but there are several ways to improve your chances: taking short courses at universities, posting content online, interning at a relevant company, and networking extensively.
My short career has taken me from being a researcher to an employed consultant to a freelancer over the course of four years. This journey allowed me to experiment with different ways of working while always staying within the realm of behavioural science.

Who is one person that we can speak to for our next interview and if you could ask them one question, what would it be?I would recommend speaking to Robert Meza. I have worked with Robert on several projects and have always enjoyed our collaboration. One of the things I admire about him is his enthusiasm for sharing knowledge, which is evident from his free content on LinkedIn and his website. My question for him would be: “Why do you believe it is so important to share knowledge in behavioural science, and how is it different from other fields?”

The post BiteSCIze with Maria Lunetto appeared first on Lynn.