C + C = C
Behaviors are bad all over. They have been for a while, but they seem to be getting worse (or I’m turning into one of those cranky old people with no tolerance for tomfoolery, which is just as likely). Movie cinema owners and operators bemoan that fewer people are going to see movies on the big screen, but they do nothing to make the experience better than what people can achieve in the comfort of their homes. So the cinemas cater to the oafs and buffoons who treat the theatrical experience like being at home: people with their phones out, people talking loudly, etc. If those are the people still going to the cinema, and if the cinema owners are welcoming and encouraging them, then the return of a broader customer base will not be forthcoming.
The same could be pointed to when it comes to public transportation. “Fewer people use [insert your local mode of public transit here]! The revenues are down!” It’s a vicious cycle. Fewer people will want to use public transportation as quality declines, until the only people using it are those who have no other options. There are politics of classism at work here, for sure, but that’s a different topic for another day. We’re talking about creating and maintaining an experience that incites people to want to use it. That is costly, but it’s necessary for success.
So how do we change behaviors? How do we, for the most part, convince people to do what we want them to do?
Convenience + Consequences = Change
Let’s talk recycling. We want people to recycle, right? But how do we get them to? 1. We make it convenient. We put recycling bins next to every garbage bin so that someone with a plastic bottle is as likely to recycle it as not since it’s not any more effort for them to put it in the recycling bin. And we issue recycling bins to residents so that, when they’re managing their trash at home, it’s easy for them to toss recyclables into the correct bin. 2. We enforce consequences for not recycling. Now, this is a bit trickier because, in order to instigate change, consequences need to be immediate and detrimental enough that most people won’t ignore them. Since the police are not going to spot check your trash habits, and since the existential threat of “some day the world will be full of trash” doesn’t have immediate impact on most people, we lean on the convenience side of the equation to encourage people to recycle. It’s not perfect; there will still be people who don’t do the thing we want them to do. But more people will do it if we (a) make it convenient and easy, and (b) assign strict consequences.
As you’ll see from the recycling example, the two don’t have to be in equal measure. If something is very convenient, you might not need the threat of consequences to be as high. If something is harder to do (less convenient), the consequences will need to be more punitive and strictly enforced to get people to change what is human nature—that is, our natural selfishness and laziness.
I read a study once about how many people use the HOV lane even if they are the only one in the car. It was a staggeringly high number. But those people had learned that the chances of them being caught and held accountable were very small. Even if they did get pulled over, the cost of the ticket for some was worth the convenience of being in the express lane rather than stuck in traffic. They’d pay the fine and continue doing what they’d been doing all along, gambling that they probably wouldn’t “lose” again any time soon. For these drivers, it’s way more convenient to break the law, and the consequences were not high enough to dissuade them.
Or, go back to recycling. We’re also told not to throw batteries or broken lightbulbs in the trash, but… A lot of people do anyway. IF we were each given a special bin to collect old batteries and bulbs (maybe e-waste in general) in, wouldn’t we be more likely to discard those things appropriately?
As for cinemas and public transportation… The shift would have to come in the form of enforcement of social rules. But few people want to start a confrontation; it’s easier (and often cheaper) to just watch movies at home, and it’s less fraught to be in your own car if you have that luxury. (Note, however, that some major cities that rely on public transport end up having broader clientele, wider usage, higher revenues, and end up with better behaviors overall across those systems. Perfect? No. But definitely more tolerable.)
The bottom line is to create an experience that is worth the effort of going out and participating in it AND/OR establish consequences for not participating. Balancing people’s selfishness and laziness against, for example, their fear of missing out. If a movie I wanted to see was not going to be streaming until a year after the theatrical release, might I be more likely to suck it up and go to the cinema? If some places were not accessible except by public transportation (more closed streets would have the bonus of encouraging pedestrianism, and increased foot traffic often leads to better revenues for storefronts)… Or if public transport became fast, easy, cheap, safe and comfortable (as it is in some places but not all)… Habits can be changed. Our own and others’. But thought has to be put into the way we build those habits, and the way we divert them when, like rerouting a river, they are not in the optimal place for cultivation.