Thinking Styles are the archetypes that you would base characters on, like characters in TV episodes. (Try writing your scenarios like TV episodes, with constant characters.) Characters think, react, and made decisions based on their thinking style archetype. BUT they also switch thinking styles depending on context. For example, if you take a flight as a single traveler versus bringing a young child along–you’ll probably change your thinking style for that flight, including getting to the gate, boarding, and deplaning.

The fact of the matter is that each market/user group has its own particular set of situational and psychological differences that determine which behaviors will be adopted and which will never even be attempted. The job of every product team, whether they know it or not, is to make it as easy and delightful as possible for their target market/user group to perform a behavior that they find doable, useful, compelling, and enjoyable that also leads to an important business outcome for the company. If any of these things are missing, there is no Behavior Market Fit and the project and any associated products will be a failure.

The JTBD Canvas 2.0 is a tool to help you scope out your JTBD landscape prior to conducting field research. It frames your field of inquiry and scopes of your innovation effort.

Personas are a widely used tool to keep real users in mind, while avoiding stereotypical thinking in the design process. Yet, creating personas can be challenging. Starting from Cooper's approach for constructing personas, this paper details how behavioral theory can contribute substantially to the development of personas. We describe a case study in which Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is used to develop five distinctive personas for the design of a digital coach for sustainable weight loss. We show how behavioral theories such as SDT can help to understand what genuinely drives and motivates users to sustainably change their behavior. In our study, we used SDT to prepare and analyze interviews with envisioned users of the coach and to create complex, yet engaging and highly realistic personas that make users' basic psychological needs explicit. The paper ends with a critical reflection on the use of behavioral theories to create personas, discussing both challenges and strengths.

Nudges have been critiqued for being too blunt of a tool. For instance, a retirement savings default may be helpful for a group of employees on average, but subgroups, say under-savers or over-savers, might be helped or harmed by this one-size-fits-all approach. As such, there have been calls to develop a more personalized approach to nudging (see here in our collection: “Imagining the Next Decade of Behavioral Science”). This paper outlines two dimensions that behavioral scientists could consider when designing personalized nudges: choice personalization and delivery personalization. Think of choice personalization as “personalization within nudges”—the method of nudge has been set (say, a default) but is tailored to specific individuals (different default leves of retirement contributions, for those over-savers and under-savers). Think of delivery personalization as “personalization as across nudges”—understanding the most effective method to nudge a certain individual. Personalizing nudges does come with data privacy and legal concerns, but these can be overcome, the paper argues.

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.

NEW URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3324907