yabs.io

Yet Another Bookmarks Service

Search

Results

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268120300871] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, design, strategy, theory - 4 | id:802639 -

We present a theoretical model to clarify the underlying mechanisms that drive individual decision making and responses to behavioral interventions, such as nudges. The model provides a theoretical framework that comprehensively structures the individual decision-making process applicable to a wide range of choice situations. We also identify the mechanisms behind the effectiveness of behavioral interventions—in particular, nudges—based on this structured decision-making process. Hence, the model can be used to predict under which circumstances, and in which choice situations, a nudge is likely to be effective.

[https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2513866_5/component/file_2514744/content] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, design, strategy - 3 | id:802636 -

To date, much of the discussion of behaviorally informed approaches has emphasized “nudges,” that is, interventions designed to steer people in a particular direction while preserving their freedom of choice. Yet behavioral science also provides support for a distinct kind of nonfiscal and noncoercive intervention, namely, “boosts.” The objective of boosts is to foster people’s competence to make their own choices—that is, to exercise their own agency. Building on this distinction, we further elaborate on how boosts are conceptually distinct from nudges: The two kinds of interventions differ with respect to (a) their immediate intervention targets, (b) their roots in different research programs, (c) the causal pathways through which they affect behavior, (d) their assumptions about human cognitive architecture, (e) the reversibility of their effects, (f) their programmatic ambitions, and (g) their normative implications.

[https://bootcamp.uxdesign.cc/com-b-experience-mapping-a-design-thinking-love-story-f09e3403495] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, design, how_to, research, strategy - 5 | id:802634 -

In their maturity, the fields of experience strategy and behavior change design are moving past the casual flirtations of two complementary knowledge domains into a full fledged partnership: when we marry the design of behavioral interventions and the design of experiences, there’s a special power in combining the myriad frameworks from both domains. This becomes especially effective when the goal is not just to identify pain points in an existing experience journey or illustrate an ideal future one — but to make actionable recommendations that will help clients make the leap from actual to ideal.

[https://medium.com/behavior-design-hub/applied-behavioral-science-a-four-part-model-48acde17b25f] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, management, strategy, theory - 4 | id:802631 -

I propose a four-stage model below that balances an understanding that each part is essential with the need to break it down into units of work that can be spread across internal teams and external vendors when necessary. But be warned: each handoff increases the potential for loss, particularly when there is an incomplete understanding of the adjoining stages. A tightly integrated process managed by people who understand the end-to-end process will always have the greatest likelihood of creating meaningful behavior change; that we can name the parts should not detract from the need for a whole. Behavioral Strategy: the defining of a desired behavioral outcome, with population, motivation, limitations, behavior, and measurement all clearly demarcated. Plain version: figuring out what “works” and “worth doing” mean in behavioral terms by collaborating with stakeholders. Behavioral Insights: the discovery of observations about the pressures that create current behaviors, both quantitative and qualitative. Plain version: figure out why people would want to do the behavior and why they aren’t already by talking to them individually and observing their behavior at scale. Behavioral Design: the design of proposed interventions, based on behavioral insights, that may create the pre-defined behavioral outcome. Plain version: design products, processes, etc. to make the behavior more likely. Behavioral Impact Evaluation: the piloting (often but not always using randomized controlled trials) of behavioral interventions to evaluate to what extent they modify the existing rates of the pre-defined behavioral outcomes. Plain version: figure out whether the products, processes, etc. actually make the behavior more likely. Behavioral Science: combining all four of those processes. Plain version: behavior as an outcome, science as a process.

[https://behavioralscientist.org/broadening-the-nature-of-behavioral-design/] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, ethics, strategy - 3 | id:802630 -

To solve problems and suggest solutions on behalf of others is to have power. As a result, we behavioral scientists have a heightened responsibility: Being in this privileged position requires recognizing when and where assumptions about “what good looks like” might creep in. When we design interventions—even just determining what options are available, or what the default choice should be—we shape other peoples’ experiences in ways we may not always fully appreciate. And our decisions to address certain problems while leaving others aside implicitly declares what challenges, and audiences, we think are worthy of receiving attention.

[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/considered-approach-behavioural-innovation-part-01-johnson-frsa/?trackingId=tPMQQ58URsfNcNFkl2BYEw%3D%3D] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, social_marketing, strategy, theory - 4 | id:684362 -

The framework comprises 6 key stages. Each building on the insights of the previous and each with its own objectives, tools and resources: 1. What - are the target behaviours? 2. Who - should we focus our resource on? 3. Why - do/don’t those people manifest the target behaviours? 4. How - can we empower people to change? 5. So What? To what extent were our interventions effective? 6. What Now? How do we apply our learnings at scale?

[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://surgoventures.org/newsroom-all/analysis-us-general-population-survey-on-covid-19-vaccine-uptake] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, strategy, target_audience - 3 | id:684174 -

The five psychobehavioral segments of Americans Surgo identified from its survey are: 1. The “Enthusiasts” (40% of the U.S. population). Every person in this group said they would get the vaccine as soon as it is made available to them. There are no barriers to vaccination 1 for people in this group—in fact, the key challenge will be ensuring vaccine supply meets their demand before they lose enthusiasm, as we’re seeing now as people struggle to sign up. 2. The “Watchful” (20% of the U.S. population). For this segment, social norms are important: Before they get the shot themselves, people in this segment first need to see that others in their peer group or community are getting vaccinated and having safe, positive experiences. 3. The “Cost-Anxious” (14% of the U.S. population). For this segment, time and costs are the primary barriers to getting the vaccine. Every member of this group reports having delayed seeking care for their health in the past due to the expense. The irony: Only 28% of people in this group lack health insurance, indicating that their concerns about costs override having insurance to cover them. 4. The “System Distrusters” (9% of the U.S. population). This group primarily believes that people of their own race are not treated fairly by the health system. Members of this group are likely to belong to, but are not exclusively, communities of color. There are multiple, complicated barriers for this segment, but most of them are related to trust in and access to a health system that has an inequitable history. 5. The “Conspiracy Believers” (17% of the population). This segment has perceived barriers around COVID-19 vaccination that Surgo believes are simply too hard to shift in the short term. It includes people who don't believe in vaccines in general, but the primary barrier for people in this group is their very specific and deeply-held beliefs around COVID-19. Every person in this group believes in at least one conspiracy theory: ○ 84% believe that COVID-19 is exploited by government to control people ○ 65% believe COVID-19 was caused by a ring of people who secretly manipulate world events ○ 36% believe microchips are implanted with the COVID-19 vaccine The three most persuadable psychobehavioral segments Surgo recommends prioritizing are the “Watchful”, “Cost-Anxious” and “System Distrusters” for maximum benefit. Each segment has specific barriers to overcome:...

[https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2019/12/change-someones-mind/] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, health_communication, how_to, strategy - 4 | id:436881 -

Again: you don’t convince people. People convince themselves. Studies done as far back as the 1940’s by Kurt Lewin showed that lectures about why people should change their behavior were effective a measly 3% of the time. But when people self-generated reasons for the same activity, behavior change occurred 37% of the time. People reject ideas they are given and act on ideas they feel they came up with themselves.

[https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2020/09/21/habit-limits/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=What+are+the+Limits+of+Building+Better+Habits?+[Best+Reads]&utm_campaign=Weekly+Digest+(Oct+3)] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, strategy - 2 | id:415536 -

In particular, a focus on habits is useful when: The most effective approaches depend more on patiently persisting over long periods of time, rather than overcoming brief, but intense, obstacles. The behavior you want can eventually run in the background of your life, not requiring lots of deliberate thinking and effort. You’re looking to make long-term changes to your routine or lifestyle, rather than a temporary shift for particular circumstances. Understanding the limitations of habits is part of what makes them powerful. If you go in with the right expectations, you’ll be far more likely to make them stick.

[https://www.ghspjournal.org/content/7/3/404] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, how_to, strategy - 3 | id:310060 -

To maximize the impact of Zika prevention programming efforts, a prioritization process for social and behavior change programming was developed based on a combination of research evidence and programmatic experience. Prioritized behaviors were: application of mosquito repellent, use of condoms, removing unintentional standing water, covering and scrubbing walls of water storage containers, seeking prenatal care, and seeking counseling on family planning if not planning to get pregnant.

[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

[http://www.ghspjournal.org/content/7/3/404] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, strategy - 2 | id:272197 -

To maximize the impact of Zika prevention programming efforts, a prioritization process for social and behavior change programming was developed based on a combination of research evidence and programmatic experience. Prioritized behaviors were: application of mosquito repellent, use of condoms, removing unintentional standing water, covering and scrubbing walls of water storage containers, seeking prenatal care, and seeking counseling on family planning if not planning to get pregnant.

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/tech-happy-life/201910/how-do-you-win-argument] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, health_communication, strategy - 3 | id:267094 -

Well, if we want to sway other people to our “correct“ vision of things, we are most likely to do that by having a strong relationship with them. Ironically, it is through carefully and compassionately listening to others that we are more likely to sway their views.

[https://www.pnas.org/content/116/30/14808] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, strategy - 2 | id:266043 -

Common sense suggests that people struggling to achieve their goals benefit from receiving motivational advice. What if the reverse is true? In a preregistered field experiment, we tested whether giving motivational advice raises academic achievement for the advisor. We randomly assigned n = 1,982 high school students to a treatment condition, in which they gave motivational advice (e.g., how to stop procrastinating) to younger students, or to a control condition. Advice givers earned higher report card grades in both math and a self-selected target class over an academic quarter. This psychologically wise advice-giving nudge, which has relevance for policy and practice, suggests a valuable approach to improving achievement: one that puts people in a position to give.

[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.

[https://www.morethannow.co.uk/single-post/2018/3/20/the-ifthen-plan] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, strategy - 2 | id:253346 -

The IF/THEN Plan has helped people achieve all sorts of goals, including ones that are either habitual or automated. It has helped people deal with a fear of spiders (IF I see a spider, THEN I will keep calm). It has helped people score higher on IQ tests by completing them more efficiently (IF I complete a question, THEN I will move immediately to the next). It has even helped groups of business leaders make commercially advantageous decisions by overcoming confirmation bias. Again, this might seem strange, but let’s look to the evidence: In 2006, Peter Gollwitzer and a fellow researcher, Paschal Sheeran analysed 94 independent studies like the above, involving over 8000 participants and found a medium-to-large effect size of the IF/THEN Plan on goal attainment.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/opinion/earning-prizes-for-fighting-an-addiction.html?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Neurosexism%3A+the+myth+that+men+and+women+have+different+brains+%5BBest+Reads%5D&utm_campaign=Weekly+Digest+%2] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, strategy, substance_abuse - 3 | id:243960 -

David Oliver wins gift cards for staying away from drugs. At St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia — which treats more overdoses than any other hospital in Canada — a program rewards users of cocaine and other stimulants with prizes when they don’t use. It’s a new approach to help substance abusers, and it’s also being tried in Veterans Affairs hospitals across the United States.

[https://www.alterspark.com/blog/claim-1-takes-21-days-form-habit] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, strategy, theory - 3 | id:186802 -

From my own experience, there appears to be a scientific trend (that I have not systematically evaluated) that successful behavior change programs tend to run for approximately 2-months, and that after this point, there is a large drop in adherence and impact. The big statistical meta-analysis that I carried out a few years back (http://www.jmir.org/2011/1/e17/), showed that online programs lasting more than 4 months, all failed. So as a rule of thumb, for most general purposes, 8-weeks is not a bad approximate time duration for many programs.

[https://behavioralpolicy.org/what-makes-interventions-last/] - - public:weinreich
behavior_change, management, strategy - 3 | id:76592 -

"This is the question that Todd Rogers and I explore in our paper, “Persistence: How Treatment Effects Persist After Interventions Stop”, published in Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. We propose a framework for understanding how and when interventions may lead to persistent behavior change. Specifically, we identify four “pathways”, or features of interventions, that may explain why some interventions are successful at generating persistent behavior changes. These pathways include (1) habit formation, (2) changing what or how people think, (3) changing future costs, and (4) external reinforcement"

Follow Tags


Export:

JSONXMLRSS