TheRetailer_Summer_19

NEWS FROM THE BRC

How do you stop people from stealing when they don’t think it’s stealing? Behavioural Insights and self service checkouts

James martin Crime and Security Adviser British Retail Consortium

That’s because we are more likely to steal if we think there is a legitimate excuse, such as blaming the self-checkout. This helps us reconcile our actions (stealing) with our self-image (that of a law-abiding citizen). Research has shown that we’re more likely to steal if: 1. We’re in a ‘hot state’ (such as being angry or hungry). Technical errors may trigger customer anger and encourage people to irrationally pack an item that hasn’t been paid for. 2. It’s easy to take goods. Self-checkouts minimise the ‘friction’ involved in stealing (again, through a lack of staff and, potentially, the proximity to the store exit). We know that making something a bit more difficult can deter us from doing something we think might be wrong. With self- checkouts, there’s very little ‘friction’. 3. We think that everybody else does it. We tend to follow what others do, or what we believe is socially acceptable (which has also been shown to drive corruption ). 4. We don’t see any ‘real victims’, particularly in the case of larger retailers. 5. We’re not stealing cash. One study found that people were more likely to steal a can of drink from the fridge than money of the same value. How is behavioural science helping? Understanding human behaviour in this context can help us find new effective ways to balance frictionless shopping with the ways people act at the self-checkout. We recognise that any solutions must keep customers happy, and maintain an efficient shopping experience. Behavioural science may offer simple, affordable, solutions. Take the first example: the customer’s reduced perception of risk. For years, CCTV has increased the perceived risk of being caught. But there may be more subtle ways. For example, images of eyes have been reduced crime and anti-social behaviour. Researchers have also found that people are more likely to fill in self-assessments for income or travel expenses accurately if they sign an honesty declaration at the outset. We might look at some kind of ‘honesty box or prompt’ at the start of the self-checkout process, nudging customers away from dishonesty as they scan their goods. As technology changes, it will become even more important for retailers to find innovative ways to reduce the likelihood of theft. That is why we are teaming up with the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) - world experts in behavioural insights, originally set up as part of the UK government - to reduce self-checkout theft. Working through the Operations Community, we’re looking to test new ideas in retail settings. If you’d like to hear more about our work in this area, please contact James.Martin@brc.org.uk and Pippa.Streeter-Hurle@bi.team.

In 1984, David R. Humble - a businessman from Florida - was in a queue at his local supermarket. He waited as the cashier slowly scanned another customer’s items, and watched the customer become so frustrated he scanned the items himself. Later that year, the first self-checkout was created. 15 years after the technology first came to the UK, self-checkouts are now common, and customers appreciate the convenience. But there is an issue. Whilst the scale of self-checkout theft is not known, one study suggests that close to a quarter of shoppers have admitted to it. Who’s to blame? It can depend on the context. People make honest mistakes: self-checkouts can be difficult, and they replace interactions with staff. Say “unexpected item in bagging area” to someone and watch their reaction. But other behaviours suggest playing the system: swapping barcodes with cheaper alternatives; selecting the price for a banana when a more expensive item is on the scale (the “banana trick”); or pretending to scan an item before bagging it. What these people seem to have in common, according to separate research conducted by Emmeline Taylor (University of London) and Adrian Beck (University of Leicester), is that they wouldn’t consider themselves to be thieves. What drives these behaviours? We tend to think that theft is driven by a rational, cost-benefit analysis (weighing up the potential benefits against the likelihood of being caught, and the consequences when you are). In part, this is true. People are more likely to steal when they feel a reduced risk of being caught and punished. Less human interaction may diminish the sense of detection. Yet, as has been found in related contexts, such as corruption, tax evasion and fare evasion, someone’s decision to steal can be affected by seemingly irrelevant factors. Consider this scenario: you walk into the local supermarket to pick up dinner. You join the checkout queue but 15 minutes later you are still waiting, with only one till open and no staff to be seen. Would you walk out the door without paying? Probably not – that’d be stealing. Now consider this: The next day, you go back to the supermarket, pick up some tomatoes and head for the self-checkout till. You put them on the scales but after scrolling through seven pages, you cannot find the vine ripened tomatoes you’ve picked up. No staff are around to help. So you just select regular tomatoes, which are cheaper. Is this stealing? Many would instinctively feel the line is not as clear.

24 | summer 2019 | the retailer