Here is an interesting way to visualize how to design for behavior using the COM-B Model and the Behavior Change Wheel If you don't know the Behavior Change Wheel, it is a framework developed by Susan Michie, Robert West and colleagues at UCL It is comprised of 19 different behavior change frameworks. At the center sits The COM-B Model: COM-B is used to look for the barriers or enablers to a behavior Capability (both physical and psychological) Opportuntity (both physical and social) Motivation (both reflective and automatic) It is a powerful way to analyze what may be stopping your customers or employees or even yourself of making the choices you already wanted to do. Outside the COM-B model (center of the wheel) sit the Intervention Types - which can include Education, Incentivization, and Training. As for the example here used in diabetes prevention design: The wheel has been filled with interventions and ways to deliver the intervention in this example. (I may have done it a bit different, but still a good representation) It looks at the Patient level - to Increase the patient's awareness of pre-diabetes It looks at Provider's Level - Improve communication skills, and teachable moments at diagnosis It looks at System Level - Invitation by physicians as well as social marketing. This of course is a small example of how the model could help you go from challenge to outcome.

Here’s an informal list of 20 Heuristics from Weinshenck and Barker in 2000. Jakob Neilsen identified 10 principles for user interface design in 1990. Gerhardt-Powals identified 10 principles of cognitive engineering in 1996. The point is that there is substantial agreement and overlap – and most of it makes sense on the face of it.

A review of recent research provides clear evidence that many organizations are currently undervaluing the power of digital design and should invest more in behaviorally informed designs to help people make better choices. In many cases, even minor fixes can have a major impact, offering a return on investment that’s several times larger than the conventional use of financial incentives or marketing and education campaigns.

great infographic!

Use of natural language to represent behaviour-change theories has resulted in lack of clarity and consistency, hindering com-parison, integration, development and use. This paper describes development of a formal system for representing behaviour-change theories that aims to improve clarity and consistency. A given theory is represented in terms of (1) its component constructs (for example, ‘self-efficacy’, ‘perceived threat’ or ‘subjective norm’), which are labelled and defined, and (2) rela-tionships between pairs of constructs, which may be causal, structural or semantic. This formalism appears adequate to rep-resent five commonly used theories (health belief model, information–motivation–behavioural skill model, social cognitive theory, theory of planned behaviour and the trans-theoretical model).