Let's talk about the new COVID-19 ads and continued focus on people "not following the rules." In Australia (and elsewhere) a vocal minority who refuse to wear masks or who flagrantly defy restrictions occupy politician and media discourse.

Why do leaders focus on them? THREAD

In many nations, certainly in Australia, governments use three key mechanisms to ensure the public follows the law: incentives (e.g. financial payments), penalties (e.g. fines) and laws (e.g. COVID-19 stay at home public health orders). These work for the majority, but not always

Fines are popular with the public, especially when they feel stay-at-home orders are an unfair punishment. That's a Western individualistic view. First, fines are only a wide deterrant to people who can comply with a desired outcome. No one likes fines, but they work for some...

The fine for not wearing a mask is $200. Fine for going to work if tested positive for COVID-19 is 100X higher: up to $20,000. Fines for breaching worker permits are $1,652 for individuals & up to $9,913 for business

Fines disproportionately penalise individuals, not systems

Incentives for complying with COVID-19 are relatively lower than penalties. $450 for staying home while waiting for a test if you don't have sick leave; $1,500 if you're positive and need to isolate

People compelled to go work* risk higher fines than subsidies available to them

*It is health and aged care workers who make up the biggest group of COVID-19 infections in Wave 2. There are many reasons why, but they're all systemic, not individual

Fining individuals, rather than making systemic reforms, reproduces discourse that individuals are to blame

The new national media campaign that features mostly middle-aged celebrities reinforces a punitive discourse: follow the rules. This is not a critique of the people in the ads. This is about why this message frame is being used, and the fact that it reinforces individual blame

It's a cyclical logic: politicians like story-telling, and so they repeat examples of outliers they're briefed about because it angers them (people going to KFC at 2am). Media also likes personal examples, so they keep pressing policians and medical experts to comment on outliers

Individuals also jump on these examples, reminding them of those they see at supermarkets not following social distancing

All of this is because the biggest cases happen outside the public eye in settings that middle class masses don't understand: aged care, factories, hospitals

Having someone to blame is indicative of how we got into this mess in the first place. It redirects pressure away from decision-makers, markets and systems that put precariously employed workers into situations where they have no choice but keep going to unsafe workplaces

Messenger effect is one way to implement behavioural change without fines, financial incentives & laws. People are influenced by people like themselves.* The new COVID-19 ads do not feature messengers like the workers being infected, nor people who willingly break the rules

*Messenger effect can work if the biggest behavioural barrier is that people are open to change, but need to hear it from a peer or influential figure

It's not clear that's the problem. Data show it's workplaces driving infections, but it's unlikely that messenger is the issue

The issue may be that workplaces are still exerting pressure on workers to go to work sick. Or that they're not adequately equipping workers. Or something else. But it's not individuals who are the problem, or else the pattern would not be found in these specific workplaces

The more politicians, advertising & media push individual blame, the greater the likelihood that these messages will have an adverse outcome (this is known as backfire effect). Messages using negative emotions have limited value; mostly work for those predisposed to the message*

*That is, if you are already following the rules, hearing "obey the rules" over and over simply reinforces behaviour for those already following the rules. It can be valuable to reinforce new norms (e.g. "keep it up!"), but negative framing is much dicer than positive messaging.

"Follow the rules" messaging is less likely to work on those NOT following the rules because it hasn't worked to date! And it's predicable that it hasn't worked because behavioural science already shows this doesn't work, and has continued to show this throughout COVID-19

Many other approaches could help: releasing de-identified data on compliance by businesses & individuals could mean behavioural & social scientists can work on part of the problem. By solely releasing quant stats on infections & deaths, researchers can only work on limited issues

Reasons why individuals don't comply with public health are social. E.g. men take more health risks than women (gendered patterns). Race and class (systemic issues) inhibit people's ability to comply, because racial minorities & working class are overwhelmingly in precarious work

The new ad campaign is off the mark because different target groups need different messages & messengers. The ads reinforce messaging without providing new information (e.g. what should people do differently in contexts where following the rules is not an option?)

The ad campaign is obviously part of a broader strategy, but message of blame needs to go.

Compliance is only part of the problem. The biggest part of the problem is institutional. That's where reform needs to happen, and where leaders, media and researchers should be working.