Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:09:04.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Applying behavioural insights to child protection: venturing beyond the low-hanging fruit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2019

ANNALESE BOLTON Open the ORCID record for ANNALESE BOLTON [Opens in a new window] ,
BEN R. NEWELL ,
SIMON GANDEVIA ,
JAMES PEEK  and
ELENA BERROCAL CAPDEVILA
ANNALESE BOLTON*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia and Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), Sydney, Australia
BEN R. NEWELL
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, UNSW, Sydney, Australia
SIMON GANDEVIA
Affiliation:
Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), Sydney, Australia and School of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, Australia
JAMES PEEK
Affiliation:
Family and Community Services, Behavioural Insights Unit, NSW, Sydney, Australia
ELENA BERROCAL CAPDEVILA
Affiliation:
Family and Community Services, Behavioural Insights Unit, NSW, Sydney, Australia
*
*Correspondence to: Annalese Bolton, UNSW/Neuroscience Research Australia, School of Psychology, Matthews Building UNSW, Randwick, NSW 2052, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We explore whether simple behavioural insights techniques can be successful for addressing a policy issue within one of society's more complex and difficult sectors: child protection. Child protection reporting practices in New South Wales, Australia, reveal that the public's primary response is to report to the statutory authority, who only deal with cases of the highest risk. As a result, a large volume of statutory resources are spent processing lower-risk reports that lead to no benefits for lower-risk families and slow down response times for families that require a statutory response most. Our goal was to reduce lower-risk reporting by encouraging alternative responses to these situations. To do this, we altered report feedback for cases deemed lower risk in order to make alternative responses more salient and we added a persuasive message framed as a gain or loss. We then examined subsequent reporting accuracy. We found that our trial was linked to a modest improvement in reporting accuracy, though the results may have been diluted by a spill-over effect. We discuss how facilitating a greater behavioural change likely requires multi-organization collaborations, extending the range of insights drawn from behavioural science and/or addressing issues from multiple angles.

Type
Article
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , July 2022 , pp. 439 - 463
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2017), Child Protection Australia 2015–16. Child Welfare series no. 66. Cat. No. CWS 60. Canberra: AIHW. ISBN 978-1-76054-092-0Google Scholar
Anderson, C. A. (1982), ‘Inoculation and counter-explanation: Debiasing techniques in the perseverance of social theories’ Social Cognition, 1, 126–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. J. (2003), ‘The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion’ Psychological Bulletin, 129, 139–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, C. A., and Sechler, E. S. (1986), ‘Effects of explanation and counter-explanation on the development and use of social theories’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1): 24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkes, H. R. (1991), ‘Costs and benefits of judgement errors: Implications for debiasing’ Psychological Bulletin, 110, 486–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkes, H. R., Faust, D., Guilmette, T. J., and Hart, K. (1988), ‘Eliminating the hindsight bias’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2): 305–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, J., Beattie, J., and Hershey, J. C. (1988), ‘Heuristics and biases in diagnostic reasoning: II. Congruence, information, and certainty’ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42(1): 88–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, A. and Newell, B. R. (2017), ‘Applying behavioural science to government policy: Finding the ‘Goldilocks Zone’’ Journal of Behavioural Economics for Policy, 1, 9–14.Google Scholar
Chou, E. Y. and Murnighan, J. K. (2013), ‘Life or death decisions: Framing the call for help’ PloS One, 8(3): e57351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erlandsson, A., Nilsson, A., and Västfjäll, D. (2018), ‘Attitudes and donation behavior when reading positive and negative charity appeals’ Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30, 444–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. J., Vandenbosch, M., and Antia, K. D. (2008), ‘An empathy-helping perspective on consumers’ responses to fund-raising appeals’ Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3): 519–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, T. and Tibshirani, R. (1990), Generalized additive models. London; New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Hirt, E. D. and Markman, K. D. (1995), ‘Multiple explanation: A consider-an-alternative strategy for debiasing judgements’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 374–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), ‘Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk’ Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, I. and Smyth, C. (2014), Keep Them Safe Outcomes Evaluation: Literature Review Final Report, Sydney: NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet.Google Scholar
Larrick, R. P. (2004), Debiasing. In Koehler, D. J. and Harvey, N. (Eds), Blackwell Handbook of Judgement and Decision Making (pp. 316–337). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., and Gaeth, G. J. (1998), ‘All Frames are not created Equal: A typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects’ Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 76(2): 149–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCambridge, J., Witton, J., and Elbourne, D. R. (2014), ‘Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research participation effects’ Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 267–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NCCD (2016), Mandatory Reporter Guide, Seventh Edition. New South Wales Government.Google Scholar
O'Brien, B. (2009), ‘Prime suspect: An examination of factors that aggravate and counteract confirmation bias in criminal investigations’ Psychology Public Policy and Law, 15, 315–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2017), Behavioural insights and public policy: Lessons from around the world. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/9789264270480-enGoogle Scholar
O'Keefe, D. J. and Jensen, J. D. (2007), ‘The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviours: A meta-analytic review’ Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives, 12, 623–644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Keefe, D. J. and Jensen, J. D. (2009), ‘The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviours: A meta-analytic review’ Journal of Communication, 59, 296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986), Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., Rucker, D. D., Bizer, G. Y. and Cacioppo, J. T. (2004), The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Seiter, J. S. and Gass, R. H. Perspectives on Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
Piñon, A. and Gambara, H. (2005), ‘A meta-analytic review of framing effect: Risky, attribute and goal framing’ Piscothema, 17(2): 325–331.Google Scholar
Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., and Salovey, P. (2006), ‘The strategic use of gain- and loss- framed messages to promote healthy behaviour: How theory can inform practice’ Journal of Communication, 56, S202-S220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, M., Snijders, V., and Hallsworth, M. (2018), ‘Behavioural science and policy: Where are we now and where are we going? Behavioural Public Policy, 2, 144–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, A. K., and Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008), ‘Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework’ Psychological Bulletin, 134, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soll, J. B., Milkman, K. L., and Payne, J. W. (2016), A users guide to debiasing. In Keren, G. and Wu, G. (Eds.). The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgement and Decision Making. London: Willey-Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Weinstein, B., Levine, M., Kogan, N., Harkavy-Friedman, J. and Miller, J. (2000), ‘Mental health professionals’ experiences reporting suspected child abuse and maltreatment’ Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1317–1328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Western Electric Company (1956), Statistical Quality Control handbook, 1st ed. Indianapolis, Indiana: Western Electric Co., p.25–28.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bolton et al. supplementary material

Bolton et al. supplementary material 1

Download Bolton et al. supplementary material(File)
File 817.2 KB