Nudging, fraying social cohesion & the scapegoat of misinformation
How the New Zealand government's behavioral surveillance fed into decision-making and when people stopped complying and social cohesion was fraying - misinformation became the reason for it.
This post wraps a bow on the story of Covid misinformation, by putting it in context with the incredible amounts of surveillance and behavioral nudging that was going on in the background.
When Clemenger BBDO came on board with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) in March 2020 to lead the Unite Against Covid campaign, they rapidly started drawing on marketing know-how to use nudging to create a feeling of ‘togetherness’ to support compliance with Covid restrictions:
Covid nudging research
You might have heard about the UK government’s Behavioral Insights team aka the Nudge Unit. Similar, but smaller, examples existed within New Zealand government agencies prior to Covid, mostly through user experience teams and co-design service improvements.
In May 2020 the all of government Joint Insights group took advantage of 1 of those teams, a Ministry of Justice unit called Behavioral Science Aotearoa. Set up and funded to provide behavioral science to the justice sector, their work until then had mostly concerned minor tweaks, like finding the best ways to remind people of court dates.
When Covid hit the unit moved their focus to specific behavioral research which could be, “fed directly into decisions around settings under the COVID19 Alert Levels and the accompanying public communications.”
Over a series of months they spun out reports that supported how public messaging could be crafted to best achieve compliance with the elimination strategy and Alert Levels in place. An early report noted, “Visibility of COVID prevention behaviors serves as an important reminder and reinforcer of social norms…this exerts a special pressure to comply”. Another laid out that if, “People no longer see the disease as much of a threat….[it] would undermine the government strategy”.
The 231 social media listening reports by Annalect made news in April 2022 when some were released in an OIA to RNZ. Commissioned by DPMC, between April 2020 to April 2022 they were done every few days to gauge public sentiment to Alert Level changes, further restrictions and later to the vaccine rollout and conspiracy theories.
DPMC themselves say, “This was to help ensure public communications about the pandemic were effective. To this end, DPMC commissioned regular research focusing on sentiment and behaviours towards COVID-19.”
When they were released then Labour Minister David Parker was quoted as saying, “...the Government didn't form policy based on the comments.”
Didn’t they David?
Because under the Alert Level framework operating at the time Cabinet had to take into account various factors when reviewing Alert Levels. 1 of these factors was, "…public attitude towards the measures and the extent to which people and businesses understand, accept, and abide by them."
As well as social media listening, regular surveys were also commissioned. And you bet I have something more to say about that.
Social license & the surveys behind nudging
Both DPMC and the Ministry of Health commissioned surveys, focus groups and in-depth research on behavior and sentiments. Key suppliers included The Research Agency (TRA), Horizon, Colmar Brunton (now part of Kantar), Ipsos and Moana Research.
TRA were contracted initially by DMPC, and then by the Ministry of Health, for weekly reporting, pulse checks and rapid reviews on attitudes in New Zealand, specifically perception and compliance with Alert Levels. They followed it up with focus groups on how they could influence - nudge - public perceptions through campaign messaging for the Unite Against Covid brand, and later vaccination messaging, that Clemenger BBDO led.
I’ve found the research frequently referenced across memos, Cabinet papers and Ministerial briefings. Then Covid-19 Minister Chris Hipkins had specific briefings on it every 2 to 3 months from DPMC.
While Cabinet was required to take into account what people did and thought about the restrictions and decisions they made - at the same time the government was actively (to the tune of hundreds of millions) - influencing what people did and thought about those same restrictions and decisions.
It’s blatant when you look for it - the Cabinet paper that introduced masks being mandated noted masks served as a “useful visual reminder” of risk. Directly echoing the Behavioral Science Aotearoa nudging research.
And the social license which underpinned these decisions being made by Cabinet was the key in the Covid lock.
A review of Alert Levels by Cabinet in 2020 called out social license and it’s importance when implementing Covid restrictions, “…since social licence is key to general compliance.”
The later, Reconnecting New Zealand Cabinet paper from 2021, noted, “Social licence has enabled this country to respond as a ‘team of five million’ and underpins high adherence to measures to keep New Zealanders safe.”
If the social license of government to make and enforce Covid restrictions declined - not only would compliance drop, it could also result in damaging social cohesion as the government had no license, no public mandate, to make these decisions and rules on behalf of people.
Compliance & mis/disinformation
And it’s here we welcome back to the main stage mis/disinformation everyone. As Covid restrictions dragged on - the public were encouraged to report anything and everything that questioned, had nuance to, government directives or announcements.
Social media platforms were actively banning any back talk on Covid on their own. But even so - when Netsafe reported Covid misinformation accounts, Facebook sometimes did and sometimes didn’t agree with Netsafe that they were violations of their terms of service. Some of these reports were presumably from the Ministry of Health misinformation team passing them to Netsafe (who had no defined threshold to do so).
Surveys of people’s attitudes were essential to amplifying the perception of misinformation - that it was both worrisome and rising. A TRA survey, from July 2021, stated, “44% of New Zealanders think misinformation impacts other New Zealanders compliance with COVID-19 health behaviours.” They don’t seem to have defined what is misinformation when they asked people and made this bold claim - based on an online survey of 827 people.
At the same time, they also showed Covid compliance was waning. A September 2021 TRA survey, “Peoples willingness to comply is not translating into actual behaviour with some significant differences between willingness to comply and always complying with the behaviour.”
It went on to say, “Alternatively, our ‘non compliants’ have contextual motivators, such as not wanting another lockdown, and wanting freedom to do what they want back.”
A surveillance survey by Horizon Research doubled-down, showing Auckland (suffering a drawn out lockdown at the time) had “very high levels of pandemic fatigue“ and falling compliance.
In November 2021, The Disinformation Project, released a report calling any issues due to specific trouble makers, “The growing polarisation, engineered by leading mis- and disinformation producers within Aotearoa New Zealand, between those who are vaccinated and those who are not, seeks to normalise the increasingly intense negotiation of difference.”
You can bask in the comfort of nanny telling you the dangers of misinformation in this slick Unite Against Covid campaign video. Or you can ask why it’s a problem.
Unprecedented restrictions, after 2 years, were bound to have heavy personal, community and societal consequences. And rather than attempt to understand that, misinformation is the short hand for, in former CIA analyst Martin Gurri’s words, “Shut up, peasant. It’s a bullet aimed at killing the conversation. It’s loaded with hostility to reason, evidence, debate…”
Covid restrictions damaged social cohesion
With all that in mind, the incessant behavioral nudging, the hand wringing amplification of misinformation alongside surveys showing people were over the Covid restrictions - leads us to social cohesion.
Social cohesion was a term that started explicitly cropping up across government in the aftermath of the Christchurch terror attack, the Royal Commission of Inquiry made recommendations on improving social cohesion. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) held the task to develop a national social cohesion framework.
The Covid-19 Chief Executives group which met regularly discussed mis/disinformation in the context of compliance, and also the need to “monitor and report on social cohesion” in a December 2021 meeting.
Social cohesion was the reason why the Ministry of Health only recommended domestic vaccine passports for large super spreader events.
Yet Cabinet applied them far more broadly than that, to any close contact business.
Even though - yeah, I’m hammering this - they were explicitly warned in a briefing of the consequences of doing so, "Experience overseas demonstrates the risk of loss of social license if a CVC is applied too broadly, in a way that is seen as interfering too much in day-to-day affairs.”
As Covid restrictions grew, became prolonged, and completely farcical (forcing travellers to do MIQ when there were thousands of Covid cases in the community) - rather than admit that - mis/disinformation worries rose too as a veiled way of shifting the problem that compliance with government directives was waning.
And what happened is what was predicted in these government briefings.
While there had been protests cropping up, they were dwarfed in early February 2022 when a large nationwide convoy of vehicles and people from across the country descended on Parliament to protest.
The Disinformation Project responded by turning out a superlative report calling the protesters consumed and misled by misinformation - which the media uncritically reported.
While government workers around Parliament quivered and worked from home - the 4th of March Covid-19 Chief Executive meeting discussed a paper on why social cohesion in New Zealand was now at risk. And don’t bother looking for a sense of irony in that paper - I couldn’t find it.
The discussion paper mentioned Covid fatigue with restrictions and support for them dropping alongside a, “significant increase in the spread of false and misleading information as the COVID-19 response has evolved.” Sigh.
It goes on to state, “Addressing misinformation and disinformation requires exploring new and diverse approaches to mitigate the consequences of false information as part of a wider government approach…Building resilience and proactively addressing disinformation and online harms needs dedicated funding and a clear lead agency.” Ugh.
And the paper added, “Proportionality of public health measures in a rapidly changing pandemic landscape requires constant review. A disconnect between public health advice and decision making with the everyday experience of the public could be perceived as breaching human rights obligations.”
Another update to the chief executives group the same week on system risks also noted “The social cohesion and its impact on the public confidence and social licence is naturally front-of-mind with the ongoing Parliament Protest and other occupations across the country. Clarity of strategic direction, transparency of decision-making, and clear communications are all important for social cohesion, which in turn, is important for the successful management of COVID-19.”
No it wasn’t you fools. Clear communication! They f*cked everyone with on-going, overly restrictive, often silly Covid policies. And did so despite advice to the contrary. Then it blew up. Then they were forced to start to peddle back.
The 12th of April briefing to Cabinet that lowered the Covid traffic light setting from red to orange and saw the end of domestic vaccine passes and most employment mandates, includes a section based on another TRA online survey from mid-March 2022 with 900 people showing overall sentiment was a mix of neutral and sad.
Misinformation was the scapegoat for a government going too far. And the people who benefited from the very idea of misinformation - had personal interests in keeping the scapegoat front and center.
Because truly, does a person making a statement you dislike, that you believe is incorrect, really pose a grave peril to be eliminated, a threat to society that must be silenced? Why are they never…a voice to be engaged?
Is the bow wrapped tight enough on this tale yet? The next post brings Covid misinformation into the wider context of online extremism, which is a justification for efforts to push content regulation as part of what Matt Taibbi at Racket News has called the industrial- censorship complex.
It seems apt here to quote Racket News contributor Andrew Lowenthal, “See how it works? The people accusing others of “disinformation” run the biggest disinformation campaigns themselves.”
End of post history bonus:
This page lists all the Covid behavioral research that I’ve found. There’s some fun nuggets in there, like did you know DPMC had 81 comms staff at the height of Covid?