Attribution Theory, Swine Flu, and the Fed
11th October 2009
Over the past year you cannot live in America and not know about swine flu. The Federal government and the mass media have cooperated in an extensive message campaign to educate the public and get everyone who should have a flu shot to get one. And, you probably know there’s some resistance to this education campaign. (Just search a news aggregator to confirm this.)
I think the Fed is handling this campaign poorly and is actually shooting itself in the foot rather than getting citizens to shoot themselves in the arms. The problem is exposed with Attribution Theory.
Briefly Attribution Theory looks at how people explain events and themselves with either Internal Attributions (I caused it to happen) or External Attributions (Something Outside of Me caused it to happen). Attribution Theory is pretty obvious on the face of it, but it has interesting implications as you think it through. Consider an attribution analysis of the Fed education campaign for flu shots.
I think the Fed is taking a hard stand on this and is on a 24/7 trip always telling people to get a shot. They are trying to be the prime motivational force that drives people’s behavior. Now, for citizens, when they ask themselves, “Why should I get a flu shot?” they engage in the basic attributional process. They’re trying to explain the world and themselves. Right now, because the Fed has been so persistent and strong in its campaign, when people ask themselves that question, they come up with External Attributions – the Fed says I should get a shot.
The problem with External Attributions is that they tend to shift responsibility away from you to someone else. You don’t have to do it because you want it, you do it because someone else wants you to do it. External Attributions can also lead to perceptions of the External Source as nagging, annoying, or scolding rather than helpful, concerned, or supportive.
Thus, the Fed may actually reduce people’s internal or intrinsic motivation to get shots and come off looking bad in the process. It’s the constant problem with “expert” recommendations. Whether you’re a Fed administrator, a scientific expert, or just a teacher or professor, sometimes the expertise has unintended consequences. Rather than being a powerful credible source that educates people who then motivate themselves to act, we overshoot the mark and our expertise reduces motivation and comes across as smug, bossy, or arrogant.
An additional problem here for the Fed is that there is a duty and responsibility to get out front on public health issues like vaccines. The Fed has to make the case, to provide the education. Yet, they cannot, as I think they are currently doing, move from being an educator to being an elitist nag.
Remember the primary rule: All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere. The Feds are all sincere all the time. They are not thinking about how to motivate intrinsic action.