yabs.io

Yet Another Bookmarks Service

Search

Results

[https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/rethinking-the-origin-of-the-behavioural-policy-cube-with-nudge-plus/269972] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, design, policy, strategy - 4 | id:684342 -

Key Terms in this Chapter Behavioural Policy Cube: The policy cube encapsulates three core features of the ‘libertarian paternalism’ framework; namely if an intervention or policy tool is informed by the standard axiomatic assumptions of rational man theory or by insights from behavioural theories, if it is internality or externality targeting, and if it is regulatory or libertarian in nature (Oliver, 2017b). Nudge: A nudge is any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people's behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009). Boost: A boost improves the competency of a decision-maker by enriching his or her repertoire of skills and decision tools and/or by restructuring the environment such that existing skills and tools can be more effectively applied (Grüne-Yanoff & Hertwig, 2016). Think: A think is a schooling strategy that involves large-scale deliberations to enable citizens to own the process of behavioural reforms. These often include citizen forums and large-scale behavioural therapies. Nudge Plus: Nudge plus refers to an intervention that has a reflective strategy embedded into the design of the nudge. It can be delivered either as a one-part device in which the classic nudge and the reflective plus are intrinsically combined, or as a two-part device whereby the classic nudge is extrinsically combined with a deliberative instrument that prompts individual reflection on the nudge. (Banerjee & John, 2020).

[https://www.behaviourworksaustralia.org/behaviour-change-101-series-five-steps-to-select-the-right-behaviour-to-target/?utm_source=Habit+Weekly&utm_campaign=1f1cda8506-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_02_02_02_55_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ab93d31fb5-1f1cda85] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, design, how_to, strategy, target_audience - 5 | id:285232 -

At BehaviourWorks, we often prioritise behaviours using the Impact-Likelihood Matrix (figure below). In this approach, behaviours are prioritised by mapping them based on: The impact they have on the problem they are intended to address. The likelihood of the target audience adopting the behaviour.

[https://measured.design/] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, design, sample_campaigns, strategy - 4 | id:283028 -

MeasureD is a resource for anyone wanting to understand, measure, and scale the impact of social design in order to strengthen society and create the conditions for equitable human health. It is intended to represent the highest level of practice and help organizations and practitioners understand where, when, and how social design is most effective. includes case studies

[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/energy-choices-we-make-consumers-guy-champniss-phd/?trackingId=QbtZu%2FzkOtbgBQSwbMurBw%3D%3D] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, design, strategy - 3 | id:266013 -

In other words, it’s not a question of consumer choices being made that are bad, but of whether consumer choice exists. So when we ask why we ‘choose (or not)' highly energy efficient products, maybe we should ask instead if we're actually ‘picking (or not)' super energy efficient products. Picking vs. choosing. This is not a question of semantics. Far from it.

[https://behavioralgrooves.com/episode/matt-loper-helping-patients-adhere-to-medication-plans/] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, design, strategy - 3 | id:264278 -

Wellth does this by “giving” patients money at the start of each month to take their pills. To prove they’re on track, they use the Wellth app to take a photograph of their medicines in the palm of their hand. But every day that they miss, they are penalized in the form of fee, which nets them less money at the end of the month. This loss-contract model is gaining notoriety and it should be: Wellth discovered that positive incentives accounted for adherence rates around 60% while loss-contract models account for better than 90% adherence rates.

[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1529100618760521] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, design, evaluation, strategy - 4 | id:264240 -

***Psychology offers three general propositions for understanding and intervening to increase uptake where vaccines are available and affordable. The first proposition is that thoughts and feelings can motivate getting vaccinated. Hundreds of studies have shown that risk beliefs and anticipated regret about infectious disease correlate reliably with getting vaccinated; low confidence in vaccine effectiveness and concern about safety correlate reliably with not getting vaccinated. We were surprised to find that few randomized trials have successfully changed what people think and feel about vaccines, and those few that succeeded were minimally effective in increasing uptake. The second proposition is that social processes can motivate getting vaccinated. Substantial research has shown that social norms are associated with vaccination, but few interventions examined whether normative messages increase vaccination uptake. Many experimental studies have relied on hypothetical scenarios to demonstrate that altruism and free riding (i.e., taking advantage of the protection provided by others) can affect intended behavior, but few randomized trials have tested strategies to change social processes to increase vaccination uptake. The third proposition is that interventions can facilitate vaccination directly by leveraging, but not trying to change, what people think and feel. These interventions are by far the most plentiful and effective in the literature. To increase vaccine uptake, these interventions build on existing favorable intentions by facilitating action (through reminders, prompts, and primes) and reducing barriers (through logistics and healthy defaults); these interventions also shape behavior (through incentives, sanctions, and requirements). Although identification of principles for changing thoughts and feelings to motivate vaccination is a work in progress, psychological principles can now inform the design of systems and policies to directly facilitate action.

Follow Tags


Export:

JSONXMLRSS