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?
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).
After analysing more than 1,000 raw foods, researchers ranked the ingredients that provide the best balance of your daily nutritional requirements – and they found a few surprises.
The actual past and future are never actually experienced. All that is experienced is the illusion of the past and future, created by thought, arising in the present.
Design fiction is one of the tools the students learn to prototype the future of business. Designers often use this strategy to help stakeholders envision divergent scenarios for their organization in the context of uncertainty.
We asked the students to consider the forces at play in today’s fast-changing society, such as artificial intelligence and decentralized governance models, and write a story about the future. Zooming out of this aspirational story, they mapped out what would have to be true from a technological and business standpoint to bring positive aspects of that future to fruition, while calling attention to factors or decisions that could negatively impact our world years from now. At its core, design fiction is a strategic exercise that connects the dots between vision and execution, transitioning teams from imagining the future to taking action.
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:...
In this presentation Liz Barnes, Vice Chair of the CIM Charity and Social Marketing Group, will discuss which tactics we should be worried about, which techniques might be considered unethical and ways we can influence and persuade with integrity.
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.
Getting to a “center with no sides” state is great. This is where my coachee was trying to get her team to - thinking of solutions to their central, big hairy goal. But it doesn’t come for free...you have to build up to that conversation. First she had to get them to locate themselves as *in* vs outside the circle of the question. Once they were aligned with the goals...that’s where the magic of the third conversation comes in.
Leading powerful, transformational change requires the ability to facilitate three essential conversations, to answer three key questions:
What is in and what is out? Ie, what are we talking about and what are we not going to talk about? Who is in and who’s out? Are we all in?
What is our center with no sides? Ie, what is the most central question we are hoping to solve together?
How can we dance on the edge of possibility? Once we know what we are talking about, and our most central question, how can we look past what’s possible to solve this challenge?
There were some significant differences between BCTs reported in implementation and de-implementation interventions suggesting that researchers may have implicit theories about different BCTs required for de-implementation and implementation. These findings do not imply that the BCTs identified as targeting implementation or de-implementation are effective, rather simply that they were more frequently used. These findings require replication for a wider range of clinical behaviours. The continued accumulation of additional knowledge and evidence into whether implementation and de-implementation is different will serve to better inform researchers and, subsequently, improve methods for intervention design.
Costing is the process of data collection and analysis for
estimating the cost of a health intervention. High-quality
cost data on SBC are critical not only for developing
budgets, planning, and assessing program proposals,
but can also feed into advocacy, program prioritization,
and agenda setting. To better serve these data needs,
these guidelines aim to increase the quantity and quality
of SBC costing information. By encouraging cost analysts to use a standardized approach based on widely
accepted methodological principles, we expect the SBC
Costing Guidelines to result in well-designed studies
that measure cost at the outset, to allow assessment
of cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost ratios1
for SBC
programming. Such analyses could also potentially help
advocates for SBC to better make the case for greater
investment in SBC programming.2
These guidelines lay
out a consistent set of methodological principles that
reflect best practice and that can underpin any SBC
costing effort.
