The slap UX: Will Smith, Chris Rock and behavioural design
The drama. The debate. The depravity. These are 2 well-acclaimed men, who had every achievement on their belts. One of them happened to win a coveted Oscar award for best actor in the 94th academy award. With everything on the line, why would Will Smith walk up to Chris Rock and slap him in front of millions of viewers and celebrities after a joke about his wife? Such an action would be seen as emotional, or even irrational. You can look at this incident from various perspectives. From a current affairs perspective, this would be a case of stopping violence and stereotypes. From a historical perspective, this would be a look into how the slap is viewed in society across time. In this article, I’m attempting to write from a behavioural design perspective. Let’s dive in.
What is Fogg’s model?
Despite being a topic that has been heavily discussed over the decades, the Fogg Behaviour model manages to lay out the factors of behaviour change by using a systematic approach. This is the definition of Fogg’s model by the originator, BJ Fogg:
“The Fogg Behavior Model shows that three elements must converge at the same moment for a behavior to occur: Motivation, Ability, and a Prompt. When a behavior does not occur, at least one of those three elements is missing.”
Motivation: the intrinsic and extrinsic drivers that lead a person to act
Enabler (Ability): the means of how a person performs the behaviour. The simpler the ability, the more likely the behaviour will take place.
Trigger (Prompt): Also known as cues, it is the starting point of a behaviour when all of the conditions are right.
Now let’s apply Fogg’s model to the Smith and Rock scenario.
Trigger
The reference “GI Jane II” triggered a reaction with a few associations. More specifically, it was targeting Jada Smith’s hair loss condition, better known as Alopecia. Perhaps an accumulation of over 4 years led to Smith’s tipping point when Rock shared a poorly timed joke.
Motivation
This is the deeper and more elusive element behind Fogg’s model, which leaves us in a difficult position of theorizing. From the chain of events, one can postulate that Smith was a family-centered man, who plays the defender role in the household, or as the protector to those who are vulnerable. A flip perspective could be on pride, where Smith felt offended by the Rock’s joke.
Enabler
How easy was it for Smith to act upon his behaviour? Well, by looking at video playbacks, you can see that Smith was sitting closer to the stage (probably due his prospects of winning an award as a nominee at that time). There was a clear path for him to walk up on stage, with nothing stopping him. However, having an audience of million viewers, as well as fellow actors and colleagues, may have prevented anyone from making a rash decision. In this case, it did not occur to Smith at the moment of irrational behaviour. Perhaps the reactions from his wife, who was sitting beside him, may have nullified the presence of the people in the room. A tunnel vision had already been carved out, and the environment made it easier.
With all of these ingredients combined, we pieced up the Fogg’s model to look at something like this below:
With a possible accumulation of innate motivation to react, all was needed was a successful trigger to solicit the behaviour. You could say it was hard to execute such a behaviour, but it didn’t stop Smith from acting with such a high motivation to get things right on a personal level.
The Aftermath
The slap was a media sensation due to the leading event that Will Smith won the most coveted award in the Oscars — Best Actor Award an hour later. It led to an uproar across various communities, each giving their own polarizing views of whether Smith was right or wrong in his behaviour. Eventually, Smith himself went public and apologized for his misbehaviour. At the time of writing, it was officially announced that the board of governors of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have banned Will Smith to attend the Oscars for 10 years. So, if Will Smith had known the consequences, would he be committed to do it? On hindsight, you would think it was possible, but the reality is that interventions and behavioural design can play a role to either reduce such situations, or prevent such violence from ever happening again. Here are some ideas:
- Designing boundaries: By creating zones between the stage and the seats, one may subtly become aware that they are entering a different setting. A different colour or lines on the floor could create non-intrusive boundaries
- Reverse view of audience: What about adding elements to stage design? With emerging trends of virtual audiences, stages and shows have already tried out a mixed medium of audiences and screens. Could tunnel vision be reduced the moment they see more beyond the presenter on stage?
- Remove or review the trigger: Every presenter has a responsibility, and their primary objective is to announce the winner on stage. Policies, reviews and best practices can be reviewed again. Just as much as Smith is banned on stage for physical assault, perhaps a deeper review of all kinds of “assault”, including verbal assaults, ought to be reviewed.
- Beyond the Oscars: Emotional baggage can be heavy and hard to bear. Being able to voice them out in appropriate channels may have quieten down the emotions of any aggressor. In an increasingly challenging environment, no one is immune to the deprivation of mental health, but counselling and early intervention can curb the negative effects.
If Will Smith was Agent J from the Men in Black Series, he would time travel back to the very same moment to undo everything. Evidently, his regret is reflected in social media and in his action. Alas, what’s done is done, and for the Smith family, this will be a time of healing. The onus is now upon organizers and designers to learn from such ordeals, apply tools that helps us see behaviour changes in a better light, and make the active change to prevent violence on stage from happening again.
