How these liars are seeking to rewrite history: Behavioural Science at its Worst

As Laura Dodsworth writes in a recent article, the claim by members of SPI-B (the U.K. Government’s Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours) that they opposed the use of fear to control public behaviour is demonstrably false. It’s a minuted fact that they advised directly threatening a sizeable proportion of the U.K. population:

It’s disturbing enough that a group of senior academics see fit to deny historical fact in a major medical journal, yet Dodsworth’s other anxiety is even more troubling:

My second significant concern was the astonishing idea that the authors could “leave aside the ethical and political dimensions of this argument”. How can psychologists leave aside the ethical dimensions of using fear, whether for an article or advising Government and drafting the plans in the first place?

The psychologists base their claim that they wouldn’t have recommended threat (even though they did) on a selective reading of the literature:

The scientific literature tells a very different story. It shows that frightening people is generally an ineffective way of persuading them to engage in health protective behaviours.

However, basic facts, most scientific research in the field, and their previously published writings undermine their denial.

Ethics-free behavioural science is impossible if it is used to change behaviour

Professors Reicher, Drury, Michie and West were all members of SPI-B. There is no record of any of them objecting to the use of “hard-hitting emotional… threat”. Yet this is such an extreme recommendation that it’s surely reasonable to conclude that they would have opposed it had they disagreed with it.

The idea that you can separate behavioural science from politics and ethics shows lack of knowledge of all three disciplines. It is possible to use scientific methods to try to understand human behaviour without making value judgements, but it’s impossible to endorse techniques to change human behaviour without being slap bang in the middle of the ethical arena.

And this, undeniably, is where they sit. They say, for example:

Information is important and must provide clear and specific guidance for exactly what behaviour individuals should adopt to implement social distancing. …

‘Protect each other’ messages should stress how desired behaviours benefit the group and protect its most vulnerable members, including those we love. …

Messages should give clear, specific and calm advice, helping households to plan together how to commit to social distancing. …

Messages should be communicated via professionally designed and appealing mass and social media campaigns.

Read More: Behavioural Science at its Worst