Why we need to apply behavioural science to help stop gun killings
In this guest post Simon Corbett argues behavioural science shows why incidents like the Charleston massacre won’t stop in the US until gun laws are changed.
“If he didn’t have a gun then he would have made an IED or just found another way… he was crazy and intent to take lives”
That is almost certainly not true and BJ Fogg, head of persuasion technology at Stanford University can explain to us why. Not that any pro-gun morons are going to listen.
BJ Fogg arguably knows more than anyone else about the science of changing behaviour. We at Slingshot both admire and adhere to his methodologies and look to apply them to all of our strategic thinking.
As any marketer who uses behaviour change principles knows changing behaviour is not about just giving people clear information and then hoping it changes their attitude and in-turn their behaviour. Neither is it giving people a Big Hairy Audacious Goal and then getting them super-pumped to reach it.
The Fogg Behaviour Model clearly articulates to us that we must have three elements that all converge at the exact same moment for behaviour to occur: Motivation, Ability, and Trigger.
When behaviour does not occur, at least one of those three elements is missing.
So if someone has a personal reason for doing something, the ability to do it (it’s simple for them) and there is a trigger to remind them, then we will see people taking thoughts into actions.
So how does this play back into gun crime in the USA?
Well the party line from the NRA, Fox News and every right wing conservative is that gun ownership is really not the issue and it is the person and only the person to blame. But that is simply not true.
Many hateful people might have the motivation to do something terrible. Dylan Roof in Charleston it seems didn’t lack motivation; he was a white supremacist, he hated black people and wished to harm them. I suspect that the triggers to act surrounded him on a daily basis – perhaps passing the famous civil rights church, perhaps frequent encounters with black people or perhaps it was his white-power music on high rotation.
However, that isn’t enough for him – or for the hundreds that have come before him – to change his behaviour and act on these despicable thoughts. It has to be easy for him – he needs to have the ability at his fingertips to make it happen. So when his father buys him a 45 calibre pistol, the third and fatal element needed for this new behaviour to occur is added.
So when the pro-gun lobby and their cronies talk about monsters such as Dylan Roof doing these things irrespective of having a gun to hand they are wrong. It is the ease of using that gun that almost certainly allows this heinous behaviour to occur. Trying to commit an act of mass murder in a car? Well in virtually all circumstances that is impossible – as it would have been in Charleston as the church was up steps to access.
Attacking people with a knife or sword? Without exception these people are cowards who prey on the innocent and defenceless so I suggest that it would be very hard to go into a crowd of people and enter into what is essentially hand-to-hand combat. Logistically you can only really attack one person at a time which leaves you vulnerable to self-defence attack from any of the others in the vicinity. The idea of actually having to fight when you’re a coward is way too hard. Build a bomb – is way harder than pulling a trigger.
It is the gun – and the ease and accessibility to it that is the key problem here. It is the gun and the ability that it gives these monsters to act on their twisted thoughts that is the scourge of America.
If you take the gun out of the equation then you make it hard for people to do these things. And if it is hard to act then it doesn’t matter how high the motivation is and how many triggers you experience the chance of acting out the behaviour is lessened profoundly.
America must know this.
However it won’t change its behaviour around gun law. Because not only is it hard for them to do it but I truly believe that for many the motivation is simply not there. But there are sure as hell plenty of triggers and the massacre in Charleston last week if you believe John Stewart is just one more trigger that will fail to change behaviour.
- Simon Corbett is chief of strategy and partner at Slingshot
Find out more about behavioural sciences and marketing at the MSix conference on July 30 in Sydney. For more information click on the banner.
The US constitution allows the populace the right to bear arms in the context of forming a militia. Written when scepticism around government was a prevailing mode of thought. I once discussed this with a law lecturer over here who said this could be interpreted to include any type of weapon including nuclear.
Libertarianism is at the core of the ongoing belief that weapons are a necessary component of US-defined free will. The whole thing has been distorted to become a self-fulfilling prophecy; because there are so many loonies running around the US shooting at innocent people it is necessary to have a gun to protect one’s self from these loonies, but I have never once read about one of these loonies being stopped in their tracks by a non-law enforcement citizen carrying a gun.
Can this mindset be changed? Yes, but over generations. Banning them will do absolutely nothing to curb the problem. Case study for behavioural change in this context: drink driving. But that’s an infinitely easier sell.
User ID not verified.
Of course banning guns works. It worked here in Australia.
User ID not verified.
@ @me: simplistic response
https://news.vice.com/article/conspiracy-theorists-think-an-army-training-exercise-will-bring-martial-law-to-the-us-this-summer
User ID not verified.
Not qualified to challenge, but Simon’s ability argument seem odd. Does he suggest behaviour can’t be changed psychologically and only through mechanical intervention?
Check me if I am wrong with my summation.
Motivation + trigger + ability with gun = major catastrophe.
Simon mentioned that motivation + trigger + ability with car = a lesser catastrophe thanks to the stairs.
Furthermore, motivation + trigger + ability with a bomb = super major catastrophe but it requires more effort.
What about the first part of that equation, motivation? Remove it and there is no trigger. Ability becomes irrelevant.
I think US gun ownership is ridiculous but a true solution is probably more complicated than presented in Simon’s ability argument.
User ID not verified.
Hey Matt B (good name btw!),
I get where you are coming from but trying to remove or change people motivation to do something is the hardest part of the BJ Fogg theory.
Usually, a persons motivation to do something is driven by an emotional reason (in the case of the Dylan Roof, it was likely hate, range or anger).
Given that it’s so easy to get a gun in the US, it makes the most sense to remove the guns first.
User ID not verified.
Guns are the least of the US’ worries,
but they’ll sure make interesting when the rest unravels.
User ID not verified.
Thanks for the comment MattB (as opposed to To ‘The Real Matt B’)
you are absolutely correct in saying that the situation in the US is more complicated than my article – I agree. However there can be no doubt that to eliminate the ability in the BJ Fogg behavioral Change Model would make a significant difference. Changing people’s motivation is very hard to do and sustain as The Real Matt B points out.
Also every person has their own motivation so very hard for a Govt to address each and every one. However if you take away their ability to act upon that motivation then we will see less people slaughtered.
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
User ID not verified.
Ooops … I meant to write “the right to arm bears”. Me bad!
User ID not verified.
A generation of people have grown up surrounded by fear (propagated by dodgy governments). They have been tauyght that they are world police and repsonsible for controlling everyone else.
This feeds down to the everyday nutter in the street who believes it is the job..no, responsibility, to take care of the baddies.
Watch australia in the next 20 years as our fear mongering government (“they are coming for us”) leads the stupid down a very dark path.
User ID not verified.
@Offal. I enjoy your postings and agree generally with your sentiments, but even though we are seeing greater polarity within our political class I don’t think we’re headed towards a gun-desiring culture. @me was correct in citing John Howard’s decision on firearms as a factor in reducing the opportunity for the Martin Bryants of our country, but Howard experienced very little pushback from the pro-gun lobby because ownership of firearms is not so ingrained in our culture. Our is not a culture where a 9 year-old can fire an Uzi at ‘Bullets and Burgers’.
The weak point of the Mr Corbett’s argument is that banning guns in the US is the solution. With so many firearms in circulation, that is going to prove extremely difficult. With the US Supreme Court upholding the right to have and bear arms, the Executive is powerless to act. Each massacre only results in a propaganda opportunity for the pro-gun lobby and sales increase.
Imagine what it would be like not to have your mobile phone close by and that’s what the gun-bearing US citizen would feel about their firearm. Once the habit is formed, one’s need to sustain that habit becomes paramount. This is a certainly a behavioural problem, but I don’t think a simple three-step methodology is the solution.
This article reads bit like the idea of stopping smoking in prisons.
User ID not verified.
Ironic from a company with shot in its name.
User ID not verified.
Interesting article Simon.
It shouldn’t take too much convincing or detailed application of the esteemed BJ Fogg’s model to agree that if we make something harder, less people will do it. Make it hard enough, and very few people will do it. However, as @me says it isn’t actually quite that easy in the US (and unfortunately a few is all it takes).
When the Freakonomics guys looked at this, they pointed out that there are an estimated 300 million guns in circulation in the US. Even when they’ve run ‘hugely successful’ gun amnesties, they’ve got tens of thousands of guns handed in. Clearly a drop in the ocean.
Add in the powerful NRA and the Constitutional Right and it doesn’t seem plausible that you’ll make it sufficiently hard for a motivated nutter to get access to a gun (it doesn’t seem like people are doing this type of killing spree in a hot state – most plan it for long enough that getting a gun would be fairly trivial).
Doesn’t mean more shouldn’t be done, and clearly it’s an appalling situation in the US, just that the answer probably requires hitting all three elements in the model.
Just watch this to help open up the conversation about the “Motivation” aspect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz6bVde-rpQ
Unless we treat children better this type of event will just keep happening.
As difficult as the gun ownership debate is the real debate and really truly hard conversation is about tackling the issue at it’s source – which is about better life outcomes for children.
Taking guns away from people is akin to the notion of cure.
Respecting and nurturing children and giving them the love and safety they require is the only truly deeply and freedom loving way of achieving the ideal of prevention over cure.
User ID not verified.
Interesting this was written only about the US. Will Simon’s exciting theory be applid to the behaviour of Islamic terrorists, who use guns, bombs, bombs attached to animals, men, women and children to kill infidels?
Will Simon write about the motivation of gun-owning/gun-using gangsters/killers and would-be killers in Melbourne’s northern suburbs and Sydney’s Western Suburbs?
Or are his eyes fixed only on ma country that is not Australia?
User ID not verified.
Apologies for typos above. Oops!
User ID not verified.
Why do we care how many guns americans have?
User ID not verified.