Using the Persuasive by Design–Model to inform the design of complex behaviour change interventions: two case studies

!Sander Hermsen Sander Mulder Reint Jan Renes Remko van der Lugt

#EAD11 !

Université Paris René Decartes April 2015

TouchpointsTwo year project Academia and practice !Aim: making recent insights from the behavioural sciences accessible and usable for the creative industries !in sync with designerly methods / without enforcing an overly descriptive design method !

This talkPersuasive by Design – model: why? Persuasive by Design – model: what? !Case I: Safety motivation - brief and designs - use of the model in design process Case II: Permit application - brief and designs - use of the model in design process !Lessons learned Implications for further work

New

Behaviour

Goal achieved:

Comparing

goal with

behaviour

fitting ability,

motivation,

opportunity?

rying out

new behaviour

Goal abandoned:

no

no

discrepancy

perceived

discrepancy

yes

No

behaviour

change

wanting and being able to

seeing and realising

habits and impulses

Habitual or

impulsive

behaviour

repeat

until h

abit

internal and external influenceson self-regulatory cycle social influences, social support, commitment, peer pressure, cooperation, social comparison, filters and biases, lack of relevant information, conflicting behaviour, conflicting norms, excuses and white lies, frustration

Hermsen, S., Renes, R. J., & Frost, J. (2014). Persuasive by Design: a model and toolkit for designing evidence-based interventions.

p. 74-77. The Hague, NL: The Hague University of Applied Sciences

Hermsen, S., Mulder, S., Renes, R.J., & Van der Lugt, R. (2015). Using the Persuasive by Design-Model to inform the design of complex

Paris 2015.

Why a model?Avoid cherry picking and misappropriation of theories !Offer a structured approach to inform designs with theory !Open up closed siloes

Attitude

SubjectiveNorm

PerceivedControl

Intention Behavior

PbD-modelSynthesis of meta-analyses of succesful behaviour change interventions !Four basic principles: 1. Automatic vs Reflective 2. Self-regulatory cycle

CUE

ChangedBehavior

Original

Behavior

No change in

Behavior

Goal achieved:

Self-Monitoring

Perception of own

behaviour

Comparison

of goal and

behaviour

Discrepancy?

fitting capability,

motivation

opportunity

Attempting

new behaviour

Disengagement

from goal

Goal

(want to / ought to)

no

no

yes

yes

PbD-modelFour basic principles: 1. Automatic vs Reflective 2. Self-regulatory cycle !3. Many influences, e.g.

■ Resistance ■ Biases, white lies ■ Frustration ■ Cognitive dissonance reduction

Competing /Conflicting Goals

ResistanceReactance and scepsis

Cognitive dissonancereduction,

competing norms

Frustration, motivation declineCompeting /

conflictingbehaviours, habits

Biases,White lies

Lack of relevant

information

ChangedBehavior

Goal achieved:

Self-MonitoringPerception of own

behaviour

Comparison of goal and behaviour

Discrepancy?

fitting capability, motivationopportunity

Attempting new behaviour

Disengagement from goal

Goal(want to / ought to)

no

no

yes

yes

PbD-modelFour basic principles: 1. Automatic vs Reflective 2. Self-regulatory cycle 3. Many influences 4. Inherently social

■ Social comparison ■ Social norms ■ Peer pressure ■ Social commitment ■ Cooperation and shared goals ■ Social inhibition, social validation

Social

Norms

Peer Pressure,

Social Validation

Social

Commitment

Cooperation,

shared goals

Social

Comparison

Social

Inhibition

CUE

ChangedBehavior

Original

Behavior

No change in

Behavior

Goal achieved:

Self-Monitoring

Perception of own

behaviour

Comparison

of goal and

behaviour

Discrepancy?

fitting capability,

motivation

opportunity

Attempting

new behaviour

Disengagement

from goal

Goal

(want to / ought to)

no

no

yes

yes

8

REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR

REFLEXIVE BEHAVIOR

boundary conditions

iCommunicator interventions aimed at

explicit, controlled behaviour

threats to self regulatory cycle

social influences on self regulatory cycle

steps in the self regulatory cycle

(model based, reflective behaviour)

iCommunicator interventions aimed at

implicit, automatic behaviour

i

Intervening in

automatic

behavior

placing

alternative

cue

attractiveness

and availability

of goal

Reporting

Performance

Feedback

i

disrupting

cue –

behavior link

iremoving

cue

+i

feasible steps

Action planning

i

i

i

Reporting

Performance

Feedback

Norm / Goal

Setting Targets by

communicating

norms and goals

Involving

Social Factors

Intervening in

reflective/controlled

behavior

Social

Norms

Peer Pressure,

Social Validation

Social

Commitment

Cooperation,

shared goals

Social

Comparison

Social

Inhibition

Competing /

Conflicting Goals

Resistance

Reactance and scepsis

Cognitive dissonance

reduction,

competing norms

Frustration,

motivation declineCompeting /

conflicting

behaviours, habits

Biases,

White lies

Lack of

relevant

information

CUE

ChangedBehavior

Original

Behavior

No change in

Behavior

Goal achieved:

Self-Monitoring

Perception of own

behaviour

Comparison

of goal and

behaviour

Discrepancy?

fitting capability,

motivation

opportunity

Attempting

new behaviour

Disengagement

from goal

Goal

(want to / ought to)

no

no

yes

yes

Persuasive by Design

Behaviour Change Model

PbD-modelFull model: black and purple layers display different intervention possibilities !Very complex Training Question sets !Does using this model aid!designers in theory-driven design?

Case 1 Interventions to increase Safety Motivation in gas plant maintenance workers

Designer!Mindmeeting, Publab, three Service Design Bureaus !Commissioner!NAM – Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij !Brief!Current safety policies at natural gas drilling facilities result in a clutter of safety- related interventions. Design a tool or service that enables plant managers to select those interventions (posters, trainings, etcetera) that ensure the safest possible working environment

MethodLiterature study Analysis of current interventions Design pressure cooker Building prototypes Piloting and evaluation

DesignsAttention: Gate !Whistleblowing behaviour: plant walks !Ownership: Safety cards !Reduce clutter: no other interventions, posters, etc. One illuminated signpost for exceptions

Model useIn every phase. !Information: structuring interviews, analysis of current interventions Ideation: defining target behaviours, structuring ‘drifting’ Build: guarding operationalization Evaluation: devising viable measurement instruments

Model useBUT: Behaviour frame had shortcomings: draws attention away from systemic factors !Most use in information, ideation !More expertise in design team than usually the case

Case 2 Fast, simple and consistent procedures for permit applications

Designer!Design Innovation Group !Commissioner!Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment !Brief!In 2018, a new environment and planning act will be implemented, entailing a decentralisation of responsibilities, and faster, shorter, and more transparent procedures. Redesign the permit application service, so that it reflects the spirit of the new act, and makes it possible for civil servants to behave accordingly.

MethodInterviews with civil servants Analysis of new act Co-design workshops Building and testing prototypes Implementation and evaluation

DesignsStandardized agenda & procedure Rolemap – who can do what, when? Optimized environment – standing only, no coffee Standardized overview of costs Smart starter application Standardized to do lists Online Track and Trace-module

Model useFly on the wall Conscience Problem-definition tool Inspiration tool

Model useBUT: Hard to use, especially further on in design process !Behaviour frame had shortcomings: draws attention away from systemic factors

19

REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR

REFLEXIVE BEHAVIOR

boundary conditions

iCommunicator interventions aimed at

explicit, controlled behaviour

threats to self regulatory cycle

social influences on self regulatory cycle

steps in the self regulatory cycle

(model based, reflective behaviour)

iCommunicator interventions aimed at

implicit, automatic behaviour

i

Intervening in

automatic

behavior

placing

alternative

cue

attractiveness

and availability

of goal

Reporting

Performance

Feedback

i

disrupting

cue –

behavior link

iremoving

cue

+i

feasible steps

Action planning

i

i

i

Reporting

Performance

Feedback

Norm / Goal

Setting Targets by

communicating

norms and goals

Involving

Social Factors

Intervening in

reflective/controlled

behavior

Social

Norms

Peer Pressure,

Social Validation

Social

Commitment

Cooperation,

shared goals

Social

Comparison

Social

Inhibition

Competing /

Conflicting Goals

Resistance

Reactance and scepsis

Cognitive dissonance

reduction,

competing norms

Frustration,

motivation declineCompeting /

conflicting

behaviours, habits

Biases,

White lies

Lack of

relevant

information

CUE

ChangedBehavior

Original

Behavior

No change in

Behavior

Goal achieved:

Self-Monitoring

Perception of own

behaviour

Comparison

of goal and

behaviour

Discrepancy?

fitting capability,

motivation

opportunity

Attempting

new behaviour

Disengagement

from goal

Goal

(want to / ought to)

no

no

yes

yes

Persuasive by Design

Behaviour Change Model

Lessons learnedModel use offers potential for evidence-based / theory-driven design !Disctinction between automatic, reflective !Structured way of dealing with known moderators of behaviour !Also in evaluation stage

20

REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR

REFLEXIVE BEHAVIOR

boundary conditions

iCommunicator interventions aimed at

explicit, controlled behaviour

threats to self regulatory cycle

social influences on self regulatory cycle

steps in the self regulatory cycle

(model based, reflective behaviour)

iCommunicator interventions aimed at

implicit, automatic behaviour

i

Intervening in

automatic

behavior

placing

alternative

cue

attractiveness

and availability

of goal

Reporting

Performance

Feedback

i

disrupting

cue –

behavior link

iremoving

cue

+i

feasible steps

Action planning

i

i

i

Reporting

Performance

Feedback

Norm / Goal

Setting Targets by

communicating

norms and goals

Involving

Social Factors

Intervening in

reflective/controlled

behavior

Social

Norms

Peer Pressure,

Social Validation

Social

Commitment

Cooperation,

shared goals

Social

Comparison

Social

Inhibition

Competing /

Conflicting Goals

Resistance

Reactance and scepsis

Cognitive dissonance

reduction,

competing norms

Frustration,

motivation declineCompeting /

conflicting

behaviours, habits

Biases,

White lies

Lack of

relevant

information

CUE

ChangedBehavior

Original

Behavior

No change in

Behavior

Goal achieved:

Self-Monitoring

Perception of own

behaviour

Comparison

of goal and

behaviour

Discrepancy?

fitting capability,

motivation

opportunity

Attempting

new behaviour

Disengagement

from goal

Goal

(want to / ought to)

no

no

yes

yes

Persuasive by Design

Behaviour Change Model

Lessons learnedBUT !The value of impact depends on expertise !Value is greater at the start of the design process !The model is too complex to use by itself !Behavioural science ‘lens’ has its limits

21

REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR

REFLEXIVE BEHAVIOR

boundary conditions

iCommunicator interventions aimed at

explicit, controlled behaviour

threats to self regulatory cycle

social influences on self regulatory cycle

steps in the self regulatory cycle

(model based, reflective behaviour)

iCommunicator interventions aimed at

implicit, automatic behaviour

i

Intervening in

automatic

behavior

placing

alternative

cue

attractiveness

and availability

of goal

Reporting

Performance

Feedback

i

disrupting

cue –

behavior link

iremoving

cue

+i

feasible steps

Action planning

i

i

i

Reporting

Performance

Feedback

Norm / Goal

Setting Targets by

communicating

norms and goals

Involving

Social Factors

Intervening in

reflective/controlled

behavior

Social

Norms

Peer Pressure,

Social Validation

Social

Commitment

Cooperation,

shared goals

Social

Comparison

Social

Inhibition

Competing /

Conflicting Goals

Resistance

Reactance and scepsis

Cognitive dissonance

reduction,

competing norms

Frustration,

motivation declineCompeting /

conflicting

behaviours, habits

Biases,

White lies

Lack of

relevant

information

CUE

ChangedBehavior

Original

Behavior

No change in

Behavior

Goal achieved:

Self-Monitoring

Perception of own

behaviour

Comparison

of goal and

behaviour

Discrepancy?

fitting capability,

motivation

opportunity

Attempting

new behaviour

Disengagement

from goal

Goal

(want to / ought to)

no

no

yes

yes

Persuasive by Design

Behaviour Change Model

Further workA simpler model !Design tools based on the model, - taking systemic moderators into account - for use in each phase of the design process

New

Behaviour

Goal achieved:

Comparing

goal with

behaviour

fitting ability,

motivation,

opportunity?

Trying out

new behaviour

Goal abandoned:

Target

Behaviour

no

no

discrepancy

perceived

discrepancy

yes

No

behaviour

change

wanting and being able to

doing and repeating

seeing and realising

knowing and feeling

habits and impulses

Cue

Habitual or

impulsive

behaviour

autom

atic beh

aviour

contr

olled b

ehavio

ur

repeat

until h

abit

Knowledge, norms,

attitudes, resistance

perceived control

Persuasive by Design

Behaviour Change Model

internal and external influenceson self-regulatory cycle social influences, social support, commitment, peer pressure, cooperation, social comparison, filters and biases, lack of relevant information, conflicting behaviour, conflicting norms, excuses and white lies, frustration

References:

Hermsen, S., & Renes, R.J. (2014). Ontwerpen voor Gedragsverandering. Utrecht, NL: Ucreate.

Hermsen, S., Renes, R. J., & Frost, J. (2014). Persuasive by Design: a model and toolkit for designing evidence-based interventions.

In: Creating the Difference. Proceedings of CHI Sparks 2014, p. 74-77. The Hague, NL: The Hague University of Applied Sciences

Hermsen, S., Mulder, S., Renes, R.J., & Van der Lugt, R. (2015). Using the Persuasive by Design-Model to inform the design of complex

behaviour change concepts: two case studies. Proceedings, European Academy of Design, 11th Conference, Paris 2015.

New

Behaviour

Goal achieved:

Comparing

goal with

behaviour

fitting ability,

motivation,

opportunity?

Trying out

new behaviour

Goal abandoned:

Target

Behaviour

no

no

discrepancy

perceived

discrepancy

yes

No

behaviour

change

wanting and being able to

doing and repeating

seeing and realising

knowing and feeling

habits and impulses

Cue

Habitual or

impulsive

behaviour

autom

atic beh

aviour

contr

olled b

ehavio

ur

repeat

until h

abit

Knowledge, norms,

attitudes, resistance

perceived control

Persuasive by Design

Behaviour Change Model

internal and external influenceson self-regulatory cycle social influences, social support, commitment, peer pressure, cooperation, social comparison, filters and biases, lack of relevant information, conflicting behaviour, conflicting norms, excuses and white lies, frustration

References:

Hermsen, S., & Renes, R.J. (2014). Ontwerpen voor Gedragsverandering. Utrecht, NL: Ucreate.

Hermsen, S., Renes, R. J., & Frost, J. (2014). Persuasive by Design: a model and toolkit for designing evidence-based interventions.

In: Creating the Difference. Proceedings of CHI Sparks 2014, p. 74-77. The Hague, NL: The Hague University of Applied Sciences

Hermsen, S., Mulder, S., Renes, R.J., & Van der Lugt, R. (2015). Using the Persuasive by Design-Model to inform the design of complex

behaviour change concepts: two case studies. Proceedings, European Academy of Design, 11th Conference, Paris 2015.

More infohttp://www.sander-hermsen.nl/?p=1820 !@sanderhermsen @TouchpointsHU !www.ucreate.nl

New

Behaviour

Goal achieved:

Comparing

goal with

behaviour

fitting ability,

motivation,

opportunity?

Trying out

new behaviour

Goal abandoned:

Target

Behaviour

no

no

discrepancy

perceived

discrepancy

yes

No

behaviour

change

wanting and being able to

doing and repeating

seeing and realising

knowing and feeling

habits and impulses

Cue

Habitual or

impulsive

behaviour

autom

atic beh

aviour

contr

olled b

ehavio

ur

repeat

until h

abit

Knowledge, norms,

attitudes, resistance

perceived control

Persuasive by Design

Behaviour Change Model

internal and external influenceson self-regulatory cycle social influences, social support, commitment, peer pressure, cooperation, social comparison, filters and biases, lack of relevant information, conflicting behaviour, conflicting norms, excuses and white lies, frustration

References:

Hermsen, S., & Renes, R.J. (2014). Ontwerpen voor Gedragsverandering. Utrecht, NL: Ucreate.

Hermsen, S., Renes, R. J., & Frost, J. (2014). Persuasive by Design: a model and toolkit for designing evidence-based interventions.

In: Creating the Difference. Proceedings of CHI Sparks 2014, p. 74-77. The Hague, NL: The Hague University of Applied Sciences

Hermsen, S., Mulder, S., Renes, R.J., & Van der Lugt, R. (2015). Using the Persuasive by Design-Model to inform the design of complex

behaviour change concepts: two case studies. Proceedings, European Academy of Design, 11th Conference, Paris 2015.

More infohttp://www.sander-hermsen.nl/?p=1820 !@sanderhermsen @TouchpointsHU !www.ucreate.nl

Thank you.