People often judge how embarrassing an activity or condition is on the basis of its perceived prevalence. They infer prevalence in part by considering how often they hear other people discussing it. But how often a condition is discussed is a function not only of its prevalence but also of how embarrassing it is. If people fail to take this into account, they will tend to judge embarrassing conditions as being rarer, which will accentuate their embarrassment, and, in turn, further amplify their reluctance to disclose those conditions - a “spiral“ of shame and silence. We present results from two studies that support the existence of such a feedback process. The first, a cross-sectional survey study, asked respondents a series of questions about different embarrassing and non-embarrassing conditions. Respondents (1) indicated whether they had the conditions, (2) judged how embarrassing the conditions were, (3) reported whether they had disclosed, or would disclose, having the conditions to others, and (4) estimated what fraction of survey respondents had the conditions. As predicted, reports of disclosure were negatively related to judgments of embarrassment, and when embarrassment was greater, estimates of prevalence were lower, both for conditions that respondents had and for conditions they did not have. The second, an experimental study, manipulated whether people received a high or low estimate of population prevalence for 5 different conditions, and found that receiving a high prevalence estimate reduced embarrassment and increased self-reported willingness to disclose the condition to others, and vice versa.

The COVID-19 pandemic provided a stark reminder that societies will struggle to address global challenges unless they are able to change behaviour at scale. The widely adopted ‘nudge’ approach epitomizes an individualistic, deficit model of human cognition and motivation that leverages or overcomes people’s weaknesses and biases to get them to do things they would otherwise not. By contrast, we argue that tackling the challenges facing humanity requires a collective, capacity-building approach – one that boosts the competences, opportunities, and motivations of individuals to act together.

The traditional focus of work on personality and behavior has tended toward “major outcomes” such as health or antisocial behavior, or small sets of behaviors observable over short periods in laboratories or in convenience samples. In a community sample, we examined a wide set (400) of mundane, incidental or “every day” behavioral acts, the frequencies of which were reported over the past year. Using an exploratory methodology similar to genomic approaches (relying on the False Discovery Rate) revealed 26 prototypical acts for Intellect, 24 acts for Extraversion, 13 for Emotional Stability, nine for Conscientiousness, and six for Agreeableness. Many links were consistent with general intuition—for instance, low Conscientiousness with work and procrastination. Some of the most robust associations, however, were for acts too specific for a priori hypothesis. For instance, Extraversion was strongly associated with telling dirty jokes, Intellect with “loung[ing] around [the] house without clothes on”, and Agreeableness with singing in the shower. Frequency categories for these acts changed with markedly non-linearity across Big Five Z-scores. Findings may help ground trait scores in emblematic acts, and enrich understanding of mundane or common behavioral signatures of the Big Five.

What's new in COM-B 2.0? 1.‘Individual-level’ COM-B is distinguished from ‘Population-level’ COM-B2.COM-B components are more precisely defined and linked to the Behaviour Change Intervention Ontology (BCIO)3.COM-B components are broken down into key influences that can form the basis for a detailed diagnosis of what needs to change to influence a given behaviour in a given population and context.

The result is META BI (Mapping of Environment, Target group and Agent for Behavioural Interventions), a classification system describing interventions across 20 dimensions and using 17 distinct psychological mechanisms. META BI is aligned with a system lens, shifting the focus from single true effects to contextualised assessments. It can help to understand, compare and evaluate nudges and selected interventions for the desired effects.

Two studies investigated associations between habits and identity, in particular what people consider as their “true self.” Habit-identity associations were assessed by within-participant correlations between self-reported habit and associated true self ratings of 80 behaviors. The behaviors were instantiations of 10 basic values. In Study 1, significant correlations were observed between individual differences in the strength of habit-identity associations, measures of cognitive self-integration (prioritizing self-relevant information), self-esteem, and an orientation toward an ideal self. Study 2 further tested the assumption that habits are associated with identity if these relate to important goals or values. An experimental manipulation of value affirmation demonstrated that, compared to a control condition, habit-identity associations were stronger if participants explicitly generated the habit and true self ratings while indicating which values the behaviors would serve. Taken together, the results suggest that habits may serve to define who we are, in particular when these are considered in the context of self-related goals or central values. When habits relate to feelings of identity this comes with stronger cognitive self-integration, higher self-esteem, and a striving toward an ideal self. Linking habits to identity may sustain newly formed behaviors and may thus lead to more effective behavior change interventions.

Nearly five years ago, in April 2020, just a few months into the pandemic, Jay van Bavel – a social psychologist at New York University – published a landmark paper aimed at helping those in power do just that. Bavel and colleagues' paper was influential as it made clear that governments couldn't rely solely on rules and regulations; they needed to motivate the public to follow them. In doing so, they proposed 19 behavioural principles – policies that were rooted in decades of psychological research and designed to help guide the public's response to the pandemic. Many of these principles were adopted by governments around the world, in the hope that psychology might help 'nudge' us, or even shove us, towards safer behaviours. These principles took many forms, from encouraging a shared sense of identity – 'we're all in this together' type thinking – to targeting fake news and misinformation. These questions were especially important to my own research, on adolescent social development and mental health. Could we really get young people to stick to these restrictions? And to what extent were the huge social sacrifices being asked of young people worth it in the long run? These unknown questions were hugely important to understand and to collect data on, and to understand what policies worked and were worth implementing. So, my interest was piqued, and it wasn't too long before I found myself in the unusual position of having first-hand experience of very different approaches to the behavioural principles in action…

Changing health information to match specific cultures can improve health outcomes. However, there are no government rules to make health information fit different cultures. We made a cultural tailoring score to test health materials. Graduate students from the target cultures tested it on COVID-19 vaccine ads. The score showed that cultural elements made the ads work better and helped people understand health messages. We suggest testing the score more to give researchers a simple tool for creating better health materials.

To support intervention developers in selecting BCTs to target specific MoAs, an online resource, called the Theory and Technique Tool (TaTT), was previously developed. This tool provides an evidence-based grid showing which BCTs are likely or unlikely to change certain MoAs. Recently, new tools—the Behaviour Change Technique Ontology (BCTO) and Mechanisms of Action Ontology (MoA Ontology)—were developed to include a wider range of BCTs and MoAs and provide more precise and computer-readable BCT and MoA definitions. By aligning the TaTT with these newer tools, we can support (1) ontology users in hypothesising about likely BCT-MoA links, and (2) TaTT users in identifying more detailed yet relevant BCTs and MoAs from the ontologies and using these in computer applications. This study aimed to map the newer ontologies’ categories to the TaTT’s 74 BCTs and 26 MoAs. Researchers carefully compared and discussed definitions from both tools to create mappings. The study found that 85 BCTs in the newer ontology corresponded to 74 BCTs from the TaTT, and 56 MoAs in the newer ontology corresponded to 26 MoAs from the TaTT. By linking the ontologies to the TaTT, this work makes it easier to use these tools together. This helps design and report behaviour change interventions more clearly and supports advanced uses like automated data analysis.

Our Behavioral Determinants Framework overlays the foundational theories from social psychology and behavioral economics onto the core challenge of marketing – identifying the factors that influence what people do. Our interventions are aimed at those behavioral determinants that move audiences beyond awareness and into action. To simplify it all, we categorize these behavioral determinants into three categories: Fun, Easy and Popular. After all, fun, easy and popular is the heart of why we humans do just about anything. The Behavioral Determinants Framework helps us frame target behaviors to address an audience’s own wants and needs rather than trying to convince them to change their values and beliefs.

This playbook gives you a system to map, diagnose, and eliminate those forces, so your change work actually changes works. Inside this playbook, you’ll get: -> A 4-step framework for identifying what’s blocking adoption -> How to score and map behavioral friction -> What most change models miss (and how to fix it) -> Real-world strategies to turn insight into implementation

Because here’s what most marketers miss: triggering emotion isn’t the same as encoding emotion. You can make people feel something in the moment and leave zero trace in memory. You can stimulate without imprinting. You can shock, confuse, or provoke and still be completely forgettable. Real emotional coding doesn’t just activate feelings. It attaches those feelings to fundamental human drives. The deep psychological forces that shape how we see ourselves and move through the world.

Increasingly the landscape of Impact Measurement is crowded, dynamic and contains a diversity of frameworks and approaches — which can mean we end up feeling like we’re looking at alphabet soup. As we’ve traversed this landscape we’ve tried to make sense of it in various ways, and have begun to explore a matrix to represent the constellation of frameworks, approaches and models we’ve encountered in the process.

100+ Items, 14 Mechanisms, 1 Journey Our goal with BCS is to offer a systematic yet adaptable methodology that makes it easier for product teams to capture the important details necessary for effective behavior change. To allow for that, we have chosen to focus on 14 Behavioral Science mechanisms as opposed to focusing on individual nudges which may or may not generalize to the unique context.

Our goal with BCS is to offer a systematic yet adaptable methodology that makes it easier for product teams to capture the important details necessary for effective behavior change. To allow for that, we have chosen to focus on 14 Behavioral Science mechanisms as opposed to focusing on individual nudges which may or may not generalize to the unique context.

The authors conducted a meta-meta-analysis to identify the most effective individual and social-structural determinants of behaviour change across various domains. Habits, access, and social support were found to be the most effective intervention targets, while knowledge, general skills, general attitudes, beliefs, and trustworthiness showed negligible effects. The paper argues that policymakers should prioritize interventions that enable individuals to overcome obstacles and facilitate behaviour change, rather than focusing on less effective determinants like knowledge and beliefs. The findings challenge the conventional wisdom that increasing knowledge and changing attitudes are the primary keys to behaviour change, suggesting a shift towards targeting contextual factors.

So, think about how you could suggest or provide effective prompts that encourage commitment to an action. And let’s kill our reliance on motivation as means of behaviour change.

We find that, acrossdomains, interventions designed to change individual determinantscan be ordered by increasing impact as those targeting knowledge,general skills, general attitudes, beliefs, emotions, behavioural skills,behavioural attitudes and habits. Interventions designed to changesocial-structural determinants can be ordered by increasing impactas legal and administrative sanctions; programmes that increaseinstitutional trustworthiness; interventions to change injunctivenorms; monitors and reminders; descriptive norm interventions;material incentives; social support provision; and policies that increaseaccess to a particular behaviour. We find similar patterns for health andenvironmental behavioural change specifically. Thus, policymakersshould focus on interventions that enable individuals to circumventobstacles to enacting desirable behaviours rather than targeting salientbut ineffective determinants of behaviour such as knowledge andbeliefs. (PDF) Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380329032_Determinants_of_behaviour_and_their_efficacy_as_targets_of_behavioural_change_interventions [accessed Jan 23 2025].

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.

Leading questions encourage a form of paradoxical thinking by leading individuals to perceive their own views as irrational, senseless, or exaggerated, examples of which can be found below (Hameiri et al., 2014, 2016; Swann et al., 1988). Leading questions are paradoxical in that they require participants to answer statements that are consistent with yet more extreme or senseless than their dearly held beliefs (Swann et al., 1988). The psychological mechanism underlying paradoxical thinking is based on three components: (1) Identity threat, in which individuals strive to distance themselves from the exaggerated and extreme attitudes presented to them by changing their own (Swann et al., 1988); (2) Surprise, in that the shock individuals experience when facing these extreme attitudes causes their deeply-rooted beliefs to be shaken, allowing new pieces of information to be absorbed (Hameiri et al., 2018); and (3) General disagreement, in that paradoxical messages are generally closer to the individual's beliefs (albeit being rather extreme) than completely contrary messages, thus provoking less resistance.

This article examines cognitive, affective, and behavioral measures of motivation and reviews their use throughout the discipline of experimental social psychology. We distinguish between two dimensions of motivation (outcome-focused motivation and process-focused motivation). We discuss circumstances under which measures may help distinguish between different dimensions of motivation, as well as circumstances under which measures may capture different dimensions of motivation in similar ways.

To understand why a person is behaving the way they are, it’s important to understand their social standing. What social groups do they belong to? What are the smallest, most intimate groups they’re a member of? What are the values of those groups? Which social group is dominant in the relevant context? Which media does this person/group consume? What messages are the media promoting, and what behaviors or attitudes are they encouraging? Does this person consume any media sources specific to this behavioral domain? If so, what are they and what are their messages?

Ability = physical + cognitive

Identity + Context = Behavioral state Context =Physical Environment + Social Environment

They collated 20 studies with 2,601 participants, studying the time it takes to turn new behaviours into automatic habits. ² The average time they reported? ➝ 106-154 days. With substantial variability, from 4-335 days. The time depended on factors like the: ↳ Type of habit ↳ Feelings about the habit ↳ Frequency performing the behaviour

Edward L. Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud and the founding father of concepts in Public Relations (PR), is known for linking Freudian psychoanalytic theories to influence consumer behaviour.

Our approach to goals and challenges can be categorized into two main motivational mindsets: prevention focus and promotion focus. These concepts, developed by social psychologist Tory Higgins, describe how we frame our desires and how that shapes our behaviour.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_TOX9mjEtw

Gamification services are hailed as effective tools for influencing users’ behaviours, increasing engagement, motivation, and enhancing learning. In the field of behaviour change, transformative outcomes have been reported for gamification services; with some conceptualisation undertaken regarding transformative gamification services. However, there is a lack of research on practical implementation of transformative gamification services. Also, previous studies have often isolated a single component of gamification and not discussed the synergistic effects and behavioural outcomes of the experiences that the combination of gamification elements can create. To bridge this gap, we provide an implementation framework for transformative gamification services. This is achieved by identifying different components of transformative gamification from a social marketing and transformative service research (TSR) lens and their behavioural outcomes. To do this, we delve into game design, gamification and behaviour change literature and suggest a practical implementation framework which incorporates users' perspectives in the form of transformative values, user engagement types (play typologies), and consumption/service encounter experiences. This research contributes to gamification theory and practice by furthering the understanding of transformative gamification services in social marketing and TSR. It also provides behaviour change practitioners with detailed steps for implementation of such services aiming to create positive behavioural changes.

Anticipated regret can indeed be a powerful motivator. When you think about what you don’t want in the future—and the picture in your mind is unpleasant enough—it can influence the decisions you make right now. While anticipated regret sometimes comes across as fearmongering, it can be done more artfully. In behavior change communications, we can apply the right dose of this strategy to prompt a person to action.

Results indicated that emotional shift messages generated more talk than single-valence messages because they elicited greater emotional intensity and deeper message processing.

Do you wonder why people are so inconsistent? Why people often seem to contradict themselves? Why they believe things they know aren't true? Why they say “Don't do X and then do that very thing? Robert Kurzban explains why. The reason is that the human mind is modular, made up of a large number of parts with different functions. Sometimes these parts conflict with one another.

Free Behavior Design, Innovation and Change Tools These frameworks started out as internal tools we would use on client projects at Aim For Behavior, that would help us save time and create better outcomes for the customers and the companies we were working with. We are always adding more frameworks or iterating the current ones based on the feedback.