Latest news with #BehaviouralInsightsTeam
Sky News AU
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Inside the University of NSW's nudge unit that wants to ‘prebunk' misinformation before it even reaches you
Today, much like confetti at a Pride parade, the term 'Orwellian' is thrown around with reckless abandon. Due to misuse and overuse, it has lost much of its power. But, sometimes, just sometimes, no other word will do. This brings us to what is unfolding in Australia right now, which resembles something straight out of an Orwell fever dream. What once sounded like the dystopian fiction of 1984 is now being quietly and efficiently implemented in Australia. In partnership with the UK's infamous Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), originally dubbed the "Nudge Unit," the University of New South Wales has launched a new program to "prebunk" so-called misinformation before it ever reaches Australian citizens. The stated goal is to train Australians, in no uncertain terms, to instinctively reject certain narratives before they've even heard them. At first glance, it might sound clinical — harmless, even. However, what it truly represents is something far more dangerous. Essentially, what we are confronting amounts to a vast psychological operation against the public mind. Initially a UK government think tank, BIT now collaborates closely with global NGOs, tech giants such as Meta, the United Nations (UN), and governments worldwide. During the COVID pandemic, Western governments openly weaponised fear, deliberately amplifying public anxiety to drive compliance with lockdowns. Psychologists later condemned these tactics as totalitarian, accusing officials of using fear, shame, and scapegoating not as public health tools, but as instruments of mass psychological control. Now, those same manipulative techniques are being deployed once again, but in an even more nefarious manner. In 2025, the goal has expanded exponentially: to pre-program citizens on issues like immigration, climate change, vaccine hesitancy, and election trust, conditioning a sort of reflexive rejection of unauthorised views before they even surface. According to the program's official materials, emotionally persuasive messages, even those based on facts, are now being flagged as potentially dangerous if they stray from the specific, pre-approved narratives. Carefully scripted 'motivational warnings", the authors suggest, should be used to inoculate people preemptively. The aim isn't dialogue. It isn't critical thinking. It's behavioral programming, pure and simple. Australians are not being informed. They are being engineered. The concept of "inoculating" audiences against future misinformation appears repeatedly throughout the document, echoing language disturbingly similar to the public manipulation strategies deployed during the pandemic. Back then, "nudging" populations into compliance was a slippery, almost sadistic strategy, with subtle pressure being applied to steer behavior without citizens ever realizing it. Now, the document suggests nudging can be taken even further. Inoculation can be "passive," where audiences quietly absorb prepackaged talking points, or "active," where individuals are trained to hunt down and refute "misinformation" themselves, all while believing it was their own idea. This shift toward gamified behavioral conditioning is portrayed as empowering. But it's not. If anything, it's incredibly sinister. Training people, especially young audiences, to "spot" misinformation based on government-sanctioned templates effectively grooms them to internalize carefully crafted viewpoints while rejecting others without critical thought. Gamification bypasses rational analysis by tying emotional rewards — such as pride, belonging, and victory — to the "correct" answers. It doesn't teach objective analysis; instead, it teaches pattern recognition based on authority-approved cues. Over time, it wires young minds to associate agreement with success and skepticism with failure. In doing so, it quietly shifts the goal of education from seeking truth to maintaining loyalty. What begins as a game ends as a form of invisible, unshakeable control. The document's case study involving TikTok illustrates this danger with a sobering degree of clarity. Back in 2022, UN Women Australia partnered with a TikTok quiz creator to embed a political message into what appeared to be harmless entertainment. After several light-hearted trivia questions, users were suddenly confronted with a left-of-field political "fact" — that humans will live on the moon before global gender equality is achieved — followed by a direct call to action. The structure is textbook inoculation: lower the audience's guard, embed an emotionally charged narrative, and prime them for a desired political response. That this technique was deployed on TikTok, a platform infamous for shaping the opinions of millions of young users through algorithms, should alarm anyone concerned about independent thought. Gamifying political messaging makes it more effective, more ominous in nature, and many times more difficult to recognise. Worse still, the document praises this manipulation as a success, boasting millions of views and hundreds of thousands of "likes," as if mass levels of mind-molding were a neutral achievement rather than a profound ethical breach. The language of inoculation obliterates the line between informing people and programming them. If COVID taught us anything, it's this: once governments and institutions taste that kind of control, they rarely give it up willingly. It's no longer enough for Australians to think for themselves on complex issues. Under this model, they must be emotionally primed in advance to reject any view the state deems undesirable or inconvenient. And what kind of views are we talking about? Criticisms of refugee policy. Doubts about election integrity. Concerns over vaccines. Questions regarding radical climate measures. In other words, the very issues many of you care about are now being rebranded as threats to be neutralized, not debated. Australia is not just another country experimenting with new methods of communication. It is, I suggest, a laboratory for a model of dictatorial democracy, one where citizens are permitted to "vote" and "speak" but only after being properly trained about what ideas are acceptable. During COVID, Australia revealed the extent of its measures: travel bans, curfews, public checkpoints, and quarantine camps. And now, instead of physical restrictions, the government and its partners are quietly erecting psychological ones. Instead of jailing protestors, they intend to prebunk them before they can even protest. Instead of banning news stories, they intend to make citizens disinterested in hearing them. Instead of police raids, they plan to condition emotional rejection. What becomes of a society where individuals are no longer allowed to wrestle honestly with important issues, where doubt itself becomes suspect, where every unpopular question triggers an immediate reflex of fear, shame, and dismissal? You don't need to imagine. It's happening right now. Orwell wrote fiction. Australia is building reality. John Mac Ghlionn is a researcher and essayist who writes on psychology and social relations. He has a keen interest in social dysfunction and media manipulation.
The Independent
23-04-2025
- The Independent
Do you know what apps your child uses in school? You should…
The UK government's recent £45 million investment in school connectivity is a laudable step toward digital transformation. But while we race to install routers and upgrade broadband, we're still missing the crucial piece of the puzzle: what students actually do online once they're connected. A delivery system is only as powerful as the content it delivers. And when it comes to education, content is king. In 2019, the Department for Education launched the Early Years Apps Pilot, a pioneering initiative to accredit high-quality educational apps. It was quietly shelved as classrooms reopened post-Covid, but its purpose is more urgent now than ever. Today, with nearly half of UK families still digitally excluded in some way – lacking broadband, devices, or essential digital skills – we need a clear national standard to ensure educational apps are safe, effective, and aligned with the curriculum. During the pandemic, digital learning tools were not just useful – they were essential. Yet not all tools were equal. Evidence from the Behavioural Insights Team shows that thoughtful EdTech design can dramatically improve outcomes. On the HegartyMaths platform, usage of help tools more than doubled and accuracy improved significantly. Other trials saw online course completion rates boosted by 15–32 per cent through simple behavioural prompts and study planning support. Schools and teachers are under immense pressure. Apps can help – not by replacing teachers, but by empowering them. They personalise learning, identify children needing support earlier, and free up time for real teaching. They're also powerful tools for homework and out-of-school engagement. But without guidance, schools are left to fend for themselves in a crowded digital marketplace. An app store is not an accreditation system. We need a rigorous national framework – one that supports both teachers and developers. The digital divide remains stubbornly wide. A 2024 study by the University of Liverpool and Good Things Foundation found that 45% of UK families lack essential digital access. During school closures, children eligible for free school meals were twice as likely to do less than an hour of learning per day, according to UCL research. The kids who would benefit most from high-quality EdTech are the ones most at risk of being left behind. This is where a national standard could be transformative. As CEO of Mrs Wordsmith, a UK-based EdTech company focused on literacy, I've seen how evidence-based, game-driven content can ignite a love of reading. Our tools are rigorously tested and built around curriculum outcomes. But not all companies work to these standards – nor should they be expected to without oversight. This isn't about nostalgia for lockdown learning. It's about realising the missed opportunity: by failing to build on the success of the Apps Pilot, successive governments have left children, parents, and teachers to navigate a Wild West of digital content. And as Secretary of State Bridget Philipson focuses on digital, we risk delivering gigabit internet to schools where children are still playing games that teach them nothing. If you're a parent, that should make you angry. But you can make your voice heard. The government must introduce a seventh digital standard: one for content. Let's move from 'connection over content' to 'connection with content' because infrastructure is meaningless without the tools to use it wisely. It is easy, just restart the program from 2019! The Department for Education is currently consulting on this very issue and inviting educators, developers, parents, and stakeholders to contribute their perspectives on digital standards. This is a rare opportunity to push for the revival and expansion of the 2019 Early Years Apps Pilot into a full national framework for educational content. The estimated 5000 to 7000 UK schools already using these DfE-endorsed apps are especially encouraged to contribute their experiences. A formal DfE accreditation process would go a long way in extending the benefits of these tools to schools that lack the internal capacity or funding to conduct their evaluation – ensuring that access to high-quality apps isn't just a privilege for well-resourced institutions. Together, let's ensure the future of UK education is not just wired for speed – but powered by purpose.
CairoScene
14-04-2025
- Science
- CairoScene
Abu Dhabi to Host Global Behavioural Science Conference BX2025
Set to be the first MENA edition of the conference, BX2025 will explore how behavioural insights shape public policy. Apr 14, 2025 Abu Dhabi is set to become the first city in the MENA region to host the Behavioural Exchange (BX2025) conference, the world's leading forum on the application of behavioural science in public policy. Organised by the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) and the Behavioural Science Group, the conference will take place from April 30th to May 1st at New York University Abu Dhabi under the theme 'New Frontiers for Behavioural Science'. BX2025 brings together global experts, policymakers, academics, and practitioners to examine how behavioural insights can inform effective governance. This year's edition will explore how behavioural science can address emerging societal challenges, from health and education to environmental sustainability and financial well-being. Behavioural science, rooted in the study of decision-making and human psychology, has become a powerful tool in shaping effective public policy. Governments around the world increasingly use behavioural insights to design interventions that align with how people actually think and behave, rather than how they are expected to. The conference, now in its seventh edition, has previously been held in cities including London, New York, and Sydney. The Abu Dhabi edition signifies the UAE's growing investment in evidence-based policy and its role as a regional hub for research and innovation. Registration for BX2025 is now open via the event's official website.
Sky News
13-04-2025
- Health
- Sky News
Low-level drinkers have increased cancer and cardiovascular risk, study finds
Low-level drinking can increase your chances of cancer and cardiovascular disease, according to a new study. Research conducted by the Behavioural Insights Team, on behalf of the charity Alcohol Change UK, examined the drinking habits of more than 4,000 UK adults. It found that people who consumed alcohol within the NHS guidelines had worse health than non-drinkers. Compared to people who never consumed alcohol, rates of cardiovascular disease increased from 1% to 5%, for cancer it went from 1% to 4%. The study also found "low-risk" drinkers reported reduced sleep quality, worse daily functioning, and poorer dental health, compared to those who have never consumed alcohol. With over 30 million people in the UK drinking at these levels, campaigners are calling for people to rethink their drinking habits. Dr Richard Piper, chief executive of Alcohol Change UK, said: "For decades, we've fallen prey to a binary but false idea that 'drinking problems' only affect a minority of people with alcohol dependence. "But as this research makes clear, alcohol is taking a toll on our health and wellbeing right across the drinking spectrum, even at 'low-risk' levels." The NHS recommends that people should not consume more than six pints of medium-strength beer or 10 small glasses of lower-strength wine a week, but scientists warn that it is the way some people consume those volumes of alcohol which can be problematic for their health. Professor David Nutt, a former government chief drugs adviser, said some view 14 units a week as a target and others binge drink. "There are people who think, 'I've got 14 units, I can have seven drinks on a Friday, seven on a Saturday, that's okay'. "We know that drinking the maximum allowance in one or two goes is very dangerous. That is where the data becomes quite complicated because some of the harms are undoubtedly magnified by binge drinking within that low-risk weekly level." Nathan Eades, 37, runs two high-end pubs in Cheltenham and used to regularly drink large quantities of alcohol but has recently changed his habits. "Being able to cut out alcohol from having five, six pints at the end of a shift to maybe one vodka soda, two vodka sodas a week has really helped benefit us as a business and me as a person," he said. "After you have probably had one too many, how do your family take it? How are your co-workers interacting with you? How are they feeling with your mood swings, brain fog and irrationality? That is the area which we all need to be a bit more mindful of." Alcohol Change UK is calling on the government to introduce health risk labelling on alcohol as well as marketing restrictions so that people have more information about the alcohol they are consuming and are not so regularly being encouraged to buy drinks. A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: "We recognise the need for urgent action to reverse the unacceptable levels of alcohol harm and deaths. "As part of our Plan for Change, we are shifting our focus from sickness to prevention, prioritising early intervention and health measures to support people to live longer, healthier lives across the UK."
The Independent
24-03-2025
- General
- The Independent
‘Poorer children mixing with wealthier peers can lead to higher earnings'
Children in poorer families but living in areas where people from different economic backgrounds mix and make friends grow up to earn more in later life, according to research. An earnings boost of around £5,100-a-year on average was experienced by adults in England whose childhood in a low-income family had been spent in an area where there were so-called 'cross-class friendships', the research into social connection found. The study, involving anonymised data from Facebook for approximately 20 million UK residents aged 25 to 64, also suggested that such 'cross-class' friendships are relatively common in South East England, especially London. But there were lower rates of what researchers called 'economic connectedness' found in northern England, South Wales, the Scottish central belt and Northern Ireland. While most childhood friendships are made in local neighbourhoods and secondary schools, researchers found hobbies such as sports groups were ripe for cross-class mixing. They said: 'High and low-income individuals in these groups form cross-class friendships at a higher rate than would be expected, given the rate at which they encounter each other in these spaces.' The researchers used data on education outcomes to map earnings when someone had reached the age of 28 for children who had been eligible, aged 16, for free school meals – indicating they were in a low-income household – across English local authorities. They said when this was combined with data from Facebook on social connections, 'areas with higher economic connectedness exhibit substantially higher upward mobility'. This led them to estimate children who grew up in low-income households but in the top 10% most economically connected local authorities ended up earning 38% more per year on average (£5,100) as adults than their peers who grew up in the bottom 10% of economically connected local authorities. The researchers said their overall findings suggest that 'bringing people from different socioeconomic backgrounds together – through more inclusive schools, workplaces, and community initiatives – may help to grow the cross-class friendships associated with better economic and social outcomes'. They added that levels of happiness and wellbeing appeared to be affected by social mixing. They said: 'After controlling for personal income, people with the highest share of very high income friends (one in five) report 5% higher happiness levels and 23% greater trust, compared to people with the lowest share of very high-income friends (one in 40).' The research, published on Monday, was carried out by a group of organisations including BIT (Behavioural Insights Team) and Facebook owner Meta. Dr Antonio Silva, principal investigator and head of social cohesion at BIT, said: 'As expected, cross-class friendships are more likely to happen in wealthier places but we still find a substantial amount of variation between places. 'While this is early research, it seems that cross-class friendships matter for future earnings. And indeed they may make us happier generally and more trusting of others. 'As most friendships are made in neighbourhoods and schools, these settings should be where we really focus on reducing segregation. We need to develop new ways of promoting connectedness across economic lines, whether by changing school catchment areas or building more mixed housing.'
