Behavioral Insights Team

The Behavioral Insights Team (BIT) (a.k.a. The Nudge Unit) is a United Kingdom-based analytics group that began as a government intelligence unit in 2010, but branched out around the world, calling itself a “global social purpose company” that tests and implements “simple yet powerful changes.”¹⁾ BIT works with dozens of banks and governments as well as many media and education groups all over the world.

• BIT Blog
• BIT Podcasts
• BIT Publications
• BIT Tools

Among BITs affialates are

• Cass Sunstein - Harvard University law professor and co-author of the book Nudge.
• Daniel Goldstein - principle research at Microsoft Research.
• Elizabeth Linos - Assistant professor of public policy at UC Berkeley
• Gus O'Donnell - Member of the House of Lords and former head of the UK's Civil Service
• Richard Thaler - Professor of behavioral science and economics at the Chicago Booth School of Business and co-author of the book Nudge.
• An assortment of professors from the world's best known universities.

One of the longstanding projects of the BIT is the Gender & Behavioral Insights (GABI) research program working to improve gender equality.

• Using social norms to increase tax payments.
• Increasing fine payments through text messages.

• Jan 18, 2022 - Ethical concerns arising from the Government’s use of covert psychological ‘nudges’²⁾

PANDA - July 12, 2022 by Gary Sidley, first published on Coronababble

Who is responsible for inflicting unethical behavioural-science ‘nudges’ on the British people?

The state’s strategic deployment of fear, shame and peer pressure – or ‘affect, ‘ego’ and ‘norms’ in the language of behavioural science – throughout the covid-19 pandemic, as a means of ‘nudging’ people’s compliance with restrictions and the vaccine rollout has been widely criticised. Ethical concerns about the Government’s use of these psychological techniques in their messaging campaign arise from several aspects of this form of influence: the wilful infliction of emotional distress on the general population as a means of increasing conformity; the failure to seek informed consent from those targeted; the contentious and non-evidenced public health policies which these strategies helped to implement; and the fact that ‘nudges’ commonly exert their influence below a person’s level of consciousness, thereby fueling the accusation that they are manipulative. But who is primarily responsible for inflicting these morally dubious, and often damaging, behavioural-science ‘nudges’ on British citizens?

There are four groups of stakeholders who could feasibly be responsible for these egregious actions:

  British Psychological Society (BPS)
  Behavioural Insights Team (BIT)
  Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B)
  Elected politicians and their civil servants

To date, all four seem to be shirking any responsibility. Indeed, when probed, the responses of these collectives resemble a duplicitous hybrid of a police officer’s, ‘Move along, nothing to see here’, and the reggae musician Shaggy denying his misdemeanours with the mantra, ‘It wasn’t me’.

Let’s consider, in turn, each group of actors who might be responsible. ³⁾

At COP26, the UN climate change conference in Glasgow last year, a series of debates held in conjunction with Albert set out the terms of acceptable broadcasting. Broadcasters were encouraged to sign a pledge to make environmentalism central to their activities. This included a commitment to ‘reach more of our audiences with content that helps everyone understand and navigate the path to net zero, and inspires them to make greener choices’; to ‘develop processes that help us to consider climate themes when… commissioning, developing and producing content’; and to ‘recognise the importance of fair and balanced representations of visions for a sustainable future’.

What broadcasters have agreed to is a promise to ensure the correct message filters through to an unsuspecting public. Sky, together with the Behavioural Insights Team (or ‘Nudge Unit’ as it was known when it was set up in 2010 by David Cameron’s government), claims that 75 per cent of people support ‘TV broadcasters “nudging” viewers to think about the environment, whether that’s through documentaries, advertising or increasing the coverage of environmental issues in the news’.

Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy has recently been announced as chair of the albert news consortium. He has been enlisted to ‘explore how the climate change conversation is represented on screen’. Broadcasters must now take into consideration whether their output fits with Albert’s principles. So much for impartiality.

By buying into Albert’s mission, the broadcast media have agreed to combine forces to make sure their output, from soap operas to news, sport to children’s cartoons, puts the planet into programme content. ‘Collectively, our industry reaches millions of people every single day. That represents an unprecedented opportunity to shift mindsets… It’s a chance to shape society’s response to climate change,’ says Albert.

The broadcasters agree: ‘We believe broadcasters have a clear role and responsibility to encourage lifestyle changes,’ said Dana Strong, CEO of Sky Group. As an example of where this leads, in the run-up to COP26, the producers of Casualty, Coronation Street, Doctors, Emmerdale, EastEnders, Holby City and Hollyoaks worked together on a climate-change storyline. ⁴⁾