For those who are intimidated by the field of economics, I’m right there with you. If you are unfamiliar, or need a quick refresher, traditional economics is based on a long line of assumptions about human behavior — it assumes that people act in rational (and predictable or computable) ways to maximize their utility (i.e. happiness). However, we know that this is not the case. In fact, as humans ourselves, we know that we act in irrational ways all the time, every day. For example, traditional economics predicts that we will refrain from eating a slice of chocolate cake because we know it’s not good for our health; in reality, the instant gratification outweighs our desire for long-term health and we eat the slice of cake anyway. This is what the emerging field of behavioral economics tells us — it draws on the intersection of psychology and economics and basically debunks a lot of the assumptions on which traditional economics relies.
So why am I explaining all this? When thinking about our public interventions, we can draw on principles of behavioral economics that more accurately predict the ways in which our audiences will interact with our design. Our public interventions can act as “nudges” towards achieving a broader goal — rather than making just a statement about some greater social issue, nudge participants towards actually doing something about it and playing their part; and for little to no cost compared to legislative bills that budget spending millions or even billions of US dollars (that could honestly be redistributed in more efficient and effective ways that actually make a difference, just saying). During this pandemic, something as simple as putting masks on statues outside the Met, or generally in public settings, can subconsciously remind, or nudge, people who pass by to wear/adjust their masks properly. To show people how much energy their use, project a large QR code on the side of a wall that take you to a quick energy calculator — take it one step further, and compare their result to the national or regional average and see how that nudges participants to either reduce their high energy spending, or keep doing what they’re doing if they’re already doing well. It seems intuitive at times, but thinking about how human psychology and behavior impacts product-use or intervention-interaction can really change the game.