Instant Genius - Prof John Drury: The psychology of lockdowns

Episode Date: December 21, 2020

In this week's episode of the Science Focus Podcast, we talk to Prof John Drury, a behavioural psychologist based at the University of Sussex who specialises in studying crowds and collective behaviour. The UK recently came out of the second COVID-19 lockdown, and went into a new three-tier system, with much of the country still in in the strictest tier. John tells us about why people respond to the restrictions differently, how to ensure people follow the rules, and what the long-term effects the lockdowns will have on our psychology. Let us know what you think of the episode with a review or a comment wherever you listen to your podcasts. Subscribe to the Science Focus Podcast on these services: Acast, iTunes, Stitcher, RSS, Overcast Listen to more episodes of the Science Focus Podcast: Hugo Zeberg: How could Neanderthal genes affect COVID-19? Dr Rachel Brown: Why are some COVID-19 patients suffering from neurological complications? Project Discovery: Could computer games help find a cure for COVID-19? David Halpern: Nudge theory Dr Pete Etchells: Do video games encourage gambling behaviour? Dr Julia Shaw: Why do we do bad things? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save? Enough. Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your oceanfront room. Just steps from the water.

The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected. When you want savings, not surprises. It matters where you stay. Hilton, for the stay. It's peak pollination season, and my business is scaling fast. To keep the nectar flowing, I need a phone plan with top priority data speed.

That's why I chose GoogleFi Wireless. My connections stay strong even when the hive is buzzing. Plus, unlimited plans started $35 a month. Now, that's a deal that doesn't stay. Explore Google Fi Wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees. GoogleFi Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage. No one goes to Hank's for his spreadsheets.

They go for a darn good pizza. Lately, though, the shop's been quiet. So Hank decides to bring back the $1 slice. He asks Copilot in Microsoft Excel to look at his sales and costs. Help him see if he can afford it. Co-pilot shows Hank where the money's going and which little extras make the dollar slice work. Now, Hanks has a line out the door.

Hank makes the pizza. Co-Pilot handles the spreadsheets. Learn more at M365.com. This podcast is sponsored by name, audio and focal. Streaming has made music more accessible than ever, but true listening is about more than ease. It's about quality. British audio experts name audio,

alongside French acoustic specialist focal, combine handcrafted tradition with cutting-edge innovation and high-end materials, delivering digital precision with analogue warmth. So you can experience exceptional sound at home. Music just as the artist intended. Visit name audio.com to learn more. You're listening to the Science Focus podcast

from the BBC Science Focus magazine team with the UK's best-selling science and technology monthly, available in print and in several digital formats throughout the world. Find out more at sciencefocus.com or look out for us in your app store. Hello and welcome to the Science Focus podcast. I'm Jason Goodyearer, commissioning editor at BBC Science Focus magazine. In this week's episode, I'm talking to Dr John Jewry,

a behavioural psychologist based at the University of Sussex who specialises in studying crowds and collective behaviour. Hi John, thanks for taking the time to talk to me today. Hi, Jason. Hi, so obviously it's big news recently that we've just come out of the second COVID-19-related lockdown into a new three-tier system with much of the country still in the strictest tier. So obviously we've been dealing with this situation for quite a long time now

since around March. And everyone responds to the rules and restrictions in different ways. So just by way of opening, what sort of, what are the headline points, the key factors that affect different people's behaviour to these sort of restrictions and rules? I think from the beginning, there's been evidence of some consistent evidence of some of the factors that matter. and one of the things obviously is the belief in the extent to which the measures are effective. Another one is the extent to which, you know, there is a threat. So, you know, the greater the R number, if you know about that, the more adherence. But there's also things like your sense of solidarity is really important.

People are doing it for others, not necessarily for themselves. The sense of fairness or justice, I mean, that's come up with the new, with the new tiers and it's always been a factor. And then linking these, I would say, is confidence in the government, confidence in what the government's doing. I mean, there was a very good panel survey carried up by UCL, which found that that was the major predictor of many of the behaviours who were asked to engage in. So that's quite interesting. I'm going drill into that a little bit, because obviously the government's come under quite heavy criticism from various, even within the Conservative Party themselves.

But there's been certain key events, I think, that have perhaps affected this particular topic. So probably chief among these is the Dominic Cummins debacle. So how much of a dent do you think that put in public confidence in the government? Well, it did. I mean, there were a number of incidents. and issues around the summer, May, June, July, and that was one of them, all of which contributed to a decline in adherence. So having said that, you know, I need to put that in context and say that adherence remained high, right? But there are these factors that did chip away

at it and reduce it somewhat in that period, one of which was the messaging, the messaging became less effective. The decline in a sense of national unity was another, and the third was this this Cummings incident, which was interpreted by many as showing that, you know, we're not all in it together. There's one rule for some and one rule for others. And there's some evidence that at least some people took that to mean, well, I don't have to abide by the rules now. On the other hand, Many others who were, you know, committed to, you know, doing their bit, used Cummings as a kind of negative, negative example and carried on and said, well, you know, I don't want to be like that. I want to, I want to carry on doing my bit. So there certainly was an effect, although it was quite complex. And since then, you know, I have to say adherence levels for most of the behaviours required. And, you know, we do need to say not all of them, and for most of them has been. being, you know, still high, you know, 70% or more.

So that sort of feeds into the point that you made there about solidarity. Is there a certain influence of, what could you say, herd behaviour, sort of ironically, safety in numbers, like all those people are doing it, they're all going to the shops, then, you know, why can't I? Well, I'm going to have to take issue with your term there, herd. I mean, it's a word you might associate more with animals. and it's kind of got the implication that the psychology, the mentality of collective phenomena is somehow more primitive than individual decision-making, individual rationality, which I'm kind of questioning that. I mean, there are different levels of self.

Okay. So when we talk about self-interest and rationality, the question is which self, right? Because, you know, I suppose there's a consensus in, you know, modern social psychology now that the self identity exists at different levels. and the collective self, our sense of being a we or an us, is just as a powerful predictor of behaviour as, you know, our personal identity. So certainly national identity at the beginning did, was a factor. But there are different levels, again, of this collective. Some studies have found that community identity,

your identity with the local area is a better predictor than, you know, national unity. But certainly, I mean, some of the most effective government messaging from the early days was when they shifted away from saying, do it to keep yourself safe to do it for others, right? Because that doing it for others does seem to be a key motivator. Because if you're doing it for yourself, you could say, well, look, look at me. I'm fitting well, right?

You know, I'm not going to be affected. and then you take these risks, but of course, you know, you're interdependent, you're, you have relationships with others. So it's thinking about others that seems to make a difference. And as for, I mean, there's a separate point, I think, about, you know, other people doing things and what you take from that, you know, when you said herd mentality. I mean, seeing your neighbours go to the shop, seeing your neighbours breaking the rules, right, it's not a mindless thing, it's a mindful thing.

You'll think that tells you something about, what is safe and what is normative, what is appropriate to my group. I mean, it's quite hard to turn around and say, well, we feel safe. We feel just as unsafe now. When you see other people who, you know, you take to tell you something about your world, breaking the rules. I mean, that's called, in psychology, we call that social appraisal, the way that others' behaviour gives us information about how to feel.

And, you know, it's a heuristic, in a sense. sense that, you know, it might be right, it might be wrong, we use it a lot, and very often it serves as well. I mean, is there, is it possible that there's a certain echo chamber effect where our sort of social groups, we all behave in it in a similar way, so then we don't exactly know what other groups are doing or we judge them in a different way? Well, we certainly looked to our own group more than other groups, but, you know, the first point is that the group groups exist at different levels of abstraction. But the second point is certainly our own group gives us more information about what is right.

But in a way, that's okay, isn't it? Because there are local and regional variations in, you know, the R value and infection levels. So, you know, some of this kind of localized, fragmented kind of group cognition, is, you know, again, a useful way of understanding something about, you know, what's appropriate and what we should be doing. Changing gear a little bit now. So you mentioned earlier about the effective messaging. What sort of techniques can governments or authorities employ to not ensure,

but to encourage people to follow these restrictions? Well, yeah, I've already mentioned the thing about, you know, who the subject is, who's being. address and how they're being addressed. That's one point. A second point is who's doing the addressing, who does it come from? I mean, as the government lost credibility, then there was a problem in their useful messaging, not being listened to so much because it was coming from them. So, you know, the messenger, that needs to be thought about. And then the third point, and this really comes from, you know, health psychologists. You know, I have been working with health psychologists since I've

been involved with, you know, research and advice on COVID, and they would say, well, your message about what to do should be actionable. And in fact, this ties in with work I've done on mass emergencies where they sometimes say, stay calm, don't panic. Is that helpful? I don't think so, because in an emergency, you don't want advice on how to feel. You want advice on what to do. And if you're anxious, what makes you less anxious is knowing what to do. is practical information. So when they shifted from stay-at-home, which was an actionable, clear behavior,

you know, everyone knew what that meant, to stay alert, which is much less clear in terms of what it means. I mean, what do they mean by alertness, how alert? There was a drop-off in public knowledge of the rules. So, you know, the, so actionable, advice which is actionable is the third piece of advice. for government messaging and communications.

So often in these things, there's the idea of reward influencing behaviour. So obviously, in this sort of situation, there's the personal reward of following the rules and not catching the virus. But so what other roles do you think this idea plays? Well, I'm not sure. I'm not sure that there's much in it personally. For most people, there's not a lot in it personally, right? I mean, although it's a minority, one in a hundred, you know, might suffer fatalities and there's long COVID, it's still a minority. We are doing it for others, right?

And so there isn't this award. But there's a debate to be had about the role of sacrifice. At the very beginning, there was a discussion around the concept of fatigue. Could the public hack it? Could they endure this, right? Could they go without? Could they make these sacrifices? Could they deal with this inconvenience?

Well, they did and they have. It was a very good review published in BMJ, I think by my colleagues Susan Mickey and Robert West, which looked at whether there was any evidence for fatigue over time, and they decided that there wasn't. So, you know, if you look at other kinds of events where people make a sacrifice, think of marathon running, think of religious festivals. I mean, I have done research on the hash, others have done research on the men,

These are physical endurance events, and the point is that people will do these things for a greater cause. So there isn't this kind of personal, there isn't much in terms of personal reward, but there is a lot in terms, you know, what we aspire to and what we care about. So sort of taking that from the opposite angle then, so there's a series of fines that are now introduced for breaking these certain restrictions. And there's certain like cases where there's been mass gatherings and the fines are, they're substantial fines. So what sort of effect do you think something like a fine or a punishment like that has on the behaviour? Well, this is a good question.

There's been the question of punishment or coercion more generally in public health measures has been looked at in other contexts. So I was involved in some research looking at mass decontamination when there's a chemical incident, right? Now, that requires a self-sacrifice in the form of having to take your clothes off and go through a shower in a public space, right? So a high personal cost behaviour. And when people were coerced into it or attempted to be cursed into it by being shouted at and threatened, then, you know, engagement went down. People did engage when there was communication, when there was concern and care about people's needs. Right. So punishment was

counterproductive because it led to people resisting the thing they're being asked to do. So the general point there is that punishment or coercion affects the relationship. So the relationship becomes not one about public health, but one about our rights. Like we're being bullied here. We're being threatened here. What about our rights? What about the way we're being treated? So if you look at it in terms of COVID, I mean, one of the early studies carried out by people at LSE

found that the threat of punishment was an inferior predictor to people's adherence to the rules then than the law, because the law has been used quite early on. It was used since March. It was a poor predictor. Then if you look at the one behaviour that we haven't talked about yet, which has been, has had the lowest figures for adherence, right? And you know, you probably know what that is. It's self-isolation, right? It's very poor. 10%, 20%, these are kind of figures. So now you've got these punishments for this. But if you look at the data on the process, why is it that people are not self-isolating enough? Because it's, you know, meant to be 14 days. It's not always 14 days. Who are they, right? So there are psychological

factors. But they're not willfulness. They're things like not knowing the rules, what your peers are doing. So you've got the norms thing again. So, you know, these are alternatives to punishment. And then you've got, you know, who they are. They're certain demographics. They're people who haven't got the financial support, haven't got the social support. So to bring in punishment when, you know, it's not willfulness, that is the problem, misunderstand what's going on there. So, you know, punishment, there are alternatives to punishment, which are probably better. So another thing that was, it was a while back now, but there were quite a few high profile figures saying that they'd actually report their neighbours.

for breaking lockdown. So just like to see what your view is on what kind of, what effect, psychological effect, that sort of statement has. Yeah, I think my worry about that is that it affects social cohesion. I mean, yes, we, you know, we all need to, or most of us need to stick to the rules. And yes, there is a place when you've got a group, it's called collective self-regulation, or sometimes it's called self-policing. there's certainly a role for, you know, not for managing from within, you know,

for managing others within your group who are not adhering. But usually you think of, well, the researchers on things like football crowds and crowds in emergencies where this is achieved by people within the group communicating, right? So supporting others, if you like, or just having a word with them, right? Because it comes best from, you know, other people within the group. I can imagine, you know, the equivalent of that when COVID would be you, you go around and talk to your neighbour, right? But reporting them to the police. And I know, actually, that the data for reports to the police absolutely rocketed. And there were so many, they just couldn't cope with it. So it's not just celebrities, it's other people. And it's not really, it's not that good. Because we do need this sense of being in it together and solidarity. And it is quite undermining of that. So, you know, I would say that's not, that's not. That's not. a good development. So another one, this is perhaps a little bit outside what we've been talking about,

but it's just something that I was interested in. And that's sort of cultural variations. So when I was younger, I spent a few years living in Japan, and they tend to follow rules a lot more strictly. That's much more part of their culture. And they have very low. I thought it was interesting they have very low, at least at first, spreading of COVID. So I just, you know, compared to it to us over here, which had it quite severe. I was just wondering what sort of, you know, how much of an impact that sort of thing plays. Yeah, certainly there are cultural differences around, it's not just abstract rules, it's actually around some of the specific practices around, around pandemics, because there is a culture, of course, of wearing masks, face coverings

in Japan and other countries. But there are also risks. I mean, I was talking to somebody from Bangladesh the other day, and they were telling me, me that a lot of the illness and fatalities have been within families where the son or the daughter has got it and given it to the parents. And if you look at the figure, so where spread happens, you know, everywhere, you know, it's the homes. And in those so-called collectivist countries, the bond of the family is very, very strong, whereas in more kind of individualist countries and we're much more kind of free agents and so on. And so, you know, what might be going on there is that, you know,

what seems like a good thing, you've got all this kind of loyalty. That loyalty kind of backfires when people get together to support each other physically, right, they physically get together, right? And that leads to spread to vulnerable family members. So, you know, it's good that people, you know, listen to their public health advice from their governments and take it on board, right? and they've got a tradition of, you know, engaging with these behaviours. But there are other elements in, you know, collectivist countries which are not, you know,

which also pose risks. So the sort of massive news recently in the whole COVID-19 story is that the development of several effective vaccines. So I just wondered what sort of effect this might have. So, you know, on the one hand, you could be. be like, oh, we're out of the woods now, we've got a vaccine. Or perhaps on the other hand, you know, are we've got a vaccine. If we just hold on for a little bit longer, then we truly will be out of the woods. I just wondered what the sort of thinking behind that might be. Well, it's interesting because I used to say when I talk to people about the role of psychology

and behaviour in the pandemic, right, until we've got a vaccine, it's all about behaviour. It's about distancing, it's about hand washing, it's about self-isolation. It's about behaviour, right? But actually, when you've got a vaccine, it's still about psychology, right? Because people have got to believe in the vaccine. They've got to do the behavior of getting the vaccine. It's about vaccination, not just the vaccine. And vaccine hesitancy is a big thing, right? I mean, some of the survey data I've been looking at recently shows that vaccine confidence

has actually been going down just at the time when we need it to go up. So there needs to be a lot of work to reassure people because vaccine hesitancy is not the same as anti-vaxxers, right? It's actually, you know, a majority of people, right? It's actually a small majority of people. It's not the committed minority. It's a very large number of people who are hesitant. And there needs to be, you know, I hesitate to use the word reassurance, but there needs to be information that will make people believe that this is safe and effective.

So, you know, that is, and these are psychological things. So these are really important variables at this time. So it's the sort of feeling that people don't want to be the first, in the first batch to test it. They want, you know, like you say, reassurance over a period of time they're safe before they're willing to take a dose of vaccine themselves. So Christmas is coming up soon. we've got this five-day sort of relaxing in the rules. So what sort of factors are going to be at play here that will affect our behaviour? Yeah.

Well, the first thing to say, of course, is that contacts is how the virus spreads. And now I've heard it said the virus doesn't recognise Christmas and it's worth repeating. I mean, you know, if you look at the public health experts, they will say they're doing things like if they're going to meet their parents, they're going to isolate themselves for five to seven days beforehand, right, or they're not going to visit them, right? If people are going to visit, I mean, there's quite a lot of guidance, actually, because the advisory groups to the government have produced very detailed guidance

on making Christmas visits safer, like the ventilation, like where to sit at the table. all these kinds of things. So that's really, really practical, useful stuff. I think my main worry about it, I suppose, is the fact that they're relaxing the number of households that get together. Because it just, and the longer you spend together, the more increases risk. And because it's winter and because it's cold, you're going to be reluctant to have that airflow that you need.

So I am concerned about it. And I do know that when they had their equivalent holiday in Canada, a few weeks ago, then, you know, infection rates went up. And I think we're seeing the same in the United States, though it's a bit too early to say. So it is a bit worrying. But I think, you know, the government have decided this now and people have started making plans. So, you know, that is why I'm not going to say to people don't do it, because I think people are going to do it. But, you know, these are the reasons why I'm concerned about it. So just one sort of final question then to cut things off. So looking forward,

we've got a vaccine, it's effective. What sort of proper long-term impact is this going to have had on our psychology? Well, that's a really good question. I mean, my current research is on mutual aid groups, and they've kind of filled a gap that the authorities haven't been able to, to meet needs that the authorities haven't been able to. Because as we said, self-isolation has been this problem with all the behaviours, right? the test trace isolate system is failing and one of the points of failure is that people are not

isolating enough what what do they need to isolate they need financial support they need social support and that means getting their shopping it means getting their prescriptions it means walking their dog it means giving them emotional support lots of these things now if you look at the development of these groups there certainly was a surge in activity in the early months and then it declined but you look at them now many of them are still going and some of them are having to have in conversations about how they take it forward, right? After COVID, are they still going to be there, right? And they are kind of alternative, well, they're networks, but they're also alternative structures, there are alternative ways of doing things, or even alternative ways of

doing politics. I mean, that's how some people think of them now. I mean, some of them are people who've been involved in groups and volunteering before. Many of them are new people seeing things in a new way. So I think that is actually quite exciting. It's quite hard work for them, And I think, you know, there's a risk for people involved in those groups of stress and burnout, but, you know, it's also quite an exciting prospect for the future. Thank you for listening to this episode of the Science Focus podcast. The December issue of BBC Science Focus magazine is out now. It's a special issue all about the search for extraterrestrial life.

In it, we talk to a scientist who is beaming messages into space for an intelligent alien species to hear. we explore the best places in our solar system to look for life and we discuss why we all want to believe in aliens. And as always, there's much more insight. Thank you for listening to the Science Focus podcast from the BBC Science Focus magazine team. With the UK's best-selling science and technology monthly, available in print and in several digital formats throughout the world.

Find out more at sciencefocus.com or look out for us in your app store. This podcast is sponsored by name, audio and first. The texture and emotional depth of music can be lost through digital sources or poor signal. Name Audio believes you can have digital precision with analog warmth. Alongside French acoustic specialist vocal, Name creates high-end audio systems combining innovation with craftsmanship, so you can listen to music, just as the artist intended. Discover more at nameadio.com.

Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition. For Citizens Bank.