What is behavior change?

Simply put, behavior change is when a person changes their actions, either temporarily
or permanently, relative to their past actions. While this can happen in a positive or
negative direction, behavior change as a field typically refers to organized and focused
efforts that might help people change their behavior in a “good” way. How you actually
define good is a very sticky ethical topic that can lead one down a deluge of philosophical
questions: is it good to change someone else’s behavior? What if they asked you to?
What is free will? Who even am I?

Leaving all of these aside for now, behavior change as a field is highly interdisciplinary,
often coming up with interventions that combine insights from a variety of academic and
applied fields like psychology, anthropology, UX, marketing, neuroscience, and
economics, among others. You might hear behavior change referred to as choice
architecture, nudging, and, erroneously, behavioral economics. Most of the time, people
are talking about the same thing: the concerted effort to use the social science toolkit to
help people be healthier, weather, and happier.

In this introduction, we’ll walk you through the most comprehensive behavior change
resource on the internet: our website! You’ll find curated links throughout, collating useful
information that we’ve gathered from over a decade of working in the field (which, weirdly,
makes us veterans). Whether you’re new to behavior change, want a refresher, or are
looking for what the bleeding edge looks like, we’ve got you covered.

Getting started

A common mistake that people make in tackling behavior change is focusing on the
enormous amount of literature describing how irrational people are. While it’s true that
behavioral economics has shown that many assumptions of classical economics don’t
quite work out when they collide with psychology, this kind of thinking can be limiting. It
has led many people in the field to develop an unhealthy obsession with biases and the
narrative that people are stupid and are therefore in dire need of some paternalistic nudge.
The more likely truth is that people are doing the best they can given the very limited
resources they have—limited time, attention, mental power, information, you get the idea.
This means that taking shortcuts makes sense and it by no means makes us irrational.
While concepts such as biases and heuristics are a fun and approachable way to dive
into behavior change, they don’t tell the full story. And while we do have the most widely
accessed library of biases, we encourage you to venture way beyond them.

With that in mind, here is where we recommend you start:

Behavior Change 101

Behavior Change Guide

In this guide, we dive a bit deeper into behavior change, discussing the process that one
might go through if they’re doing a project in this area. We’ll walk you through a few very
basic behavior change frameworks and give you an overview of what pitfalls you might
encounter as you try to do this yourself.

People

Daniel Kahneman

Daniel Kahneman has had an immeasurable influence in the field of behavioral science—
he’s actually considered the ‘father’ of the discipline. This profile will give you a glimpse
into his legacy, from the dual-process model to loss aversion. Kahneman was one of the
first people to question the idea that humans always behave rationally, paving the way for
a deeper understanding of human decision-making.

Amos Tversky

Together, Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman are responsible for some of the most
groundbreaking research that’s redefined what we know about our cognitive processes.
This entry provides an introduction to prospect theory, which highlights that our choices
are often influenced by ‘mental shortcuts’ and the way options are presented.

Katy Milkman

This bio feature covers Katy Milkman, who is known best for her research on recognizing
and overcoming behavior change barriers. When it comes to driving change, Milkman
works interdisciplinarily, taking inspiration from her training as an engineer to recognize
the forces that work against us.

Podcast Episodes

Machine Learning And Personalized Interventions: David Halpern

Behavior change isn’t just something discussed in academic literature—it’s everywhere. In

this podcast episode featuring David Halpern, CEO of the Behavioural Insights Team, we
take a look at how behavioral science is being used in interventions to reduce domestic
violence, address financial behaviors, and design public policies like the UK's sugar tax.

How Fun Might Move the World: Cass Sunstein

In this episode, Harvard professor Cass Sunstein talks about how “fun” can be used as a
tool for improving outcomes in different contexts. You'll discover how fun can be
strategically applied in public policy, making necessary actions more engaging and
enjoyable. For example, humor was effectively used in public health campaigns during
the COVID-19 pandemic to connect with the public and promote positive behavior.

Biases

Bounded Rationality

To no surprise, we don’t always make the most optimal choice. Instead, we attempt to
satisfy, settling on a decision that is “good enough.” In this article, learn about why we fall
into this cognitive trap called bounded rationality and how we can work toward limiting its
effects.

Confirmation Bias

Throughout this guide, you’ll come to see that presenting information and reasons to
change behavior alone often falls short of making a lasting impact. That is, in part, thanks
to confirmation bias—our tendency to focus on and give more credit to information that fits
with our existing beliefs.

Status Quo Bias

We may also be resistant to change because, well, we’re comfortable with the way things
are! In this piece, explore how the status quo bias impedes innovation—both personally
and as a collective. By gaining a deeper understanding, we can uncover strategies to
overcome it and foster a more adaptable mindset.

Tools of the trade

What tools do you need to succeed?

One of the best things about behavior change is how versatile it is. But this strength can
also make it really daunting to learn, especially when you’re just starting out. The behavior
change toolkit is complex and varies quite a lot depending on who you ask. Someone with
a public health background and someone with a retail sales background might both be
“behavior change experts” in their own right, but will likely use vastly different tools to
support their (also vastly different) behavior change goals. So where does that leave a
generalist practitioner who wants to be equipped to tackle many different behavior change
contexts? On this page, we’ve put together some of the more context-agnostic tools that
a behavior change expert might use.

If you’re just starting out, be aware that behavior change experts tend to specialize in
certain tools, and sometimes even over-rely on them. Ideally, you should be proficient in
a wide variety of the tools listed below so you can apply the best one to whatever situation
comes your way. For example, if you're only familiar with nudges and incentives, you
might miss opportunities to leverage social influence or habit formation techniques that
could be more effective in certain scenarios. A well-rounded behavior change practitioner
should be able to draw from cognitive psychology, behavioral economics, social
psychology, and even elements of design thinking, UX, and marketing to create
comprehensive strategies.

Another thing to keep in mind is that you’ll often hear about behavior change frameworks—
something we cover in full in the next section of this guide. These frameworks aren’t
exactly ingredients in the toolkit we’ve assembled below. They’re more like pre-packaged
bundles of tools. So, some of them may focus much more on social aspects of behavior
change while others are concerned with habit formation or gamification. But before getting
into any of that, take a look at the ingredients below as they'll allow you to customize your
approach and understand the underlying principles of various frameworks. This
foundational knowledge will enable you to critically evaluate existing frameworks, adapt
them to your specific needs, and even create your own when necessary.

The toolkit

Some key tools in a generalist's behavior change toolkit might include:

Correlation vs Causation

When dissecting research, we’ve got to keep in mind the difference between correlation
and causation to truly understand the larger implications of the findings. While correlation
simply implies a relationship or association between two variables, causation means that
one variable directly produces a change in the other. This article will give you a rundown
of both concepts, highlighting when one works better than the other and how they both
impact the interpretation of research.

Behavioral Diagnosis Techniques

Before trying to figure out how to change behavior, you first need to figure out what it is
you want to change. Through behavioral diagnosis techniques, we can design more
effective interventions, creating strategies that address motivators, barriers, and diverse
contexts. This article will show you how a targeted approach increases the likelihood of
successful behavior change and helps sustain long-term outcomes.

Framing

When it comes to behavior change, it can all lie in how you frame it. The way choices are
presented—even in the case of equivalent options—can influence our decisions and how
we perceive our subsequent actions. As you’ll see in this piece, time and time again,
framing has been proven to be a powerful tool in guiding behavior. By carefully
considering how we present information, we can impact the choices people make, making
it a crucial element in any behavior change strategy.

Choice Architecture Principles

Like framing, choice architecture refers to the environment in which we make decisions.
In this article, learn about how cues push us in different directions, causing us to walk
paths we might not have taken on our own—and, when used correctly, can encourage
people to make better choices.

Social Proof

We’ve established that we don’t make decisions in a vacuum. A lot of our choices are also
based on the precedent set by others or the recommendations of our peers. Behavior
change strategies can be made even more effective by getting social backing. Read about
the science behind why, when we see our friends, family, or even people we admire
making certain choices, we're more likely to follow suit.

Incentivization

It’s commonly thought that intrinsic motivation is one of the most powerful forms, but there
are indeed extrinsic ways to encourage people to do things. Incentives can be anything
from financial rewards for completing tasks to recognition and praise for achievements.
Businesses often use incentives to boost performance, and therapists use incentive-
based behavioral contracts to help clients stick to a plan. But as you’ll see, behavior
change requires a delicate balance between external rewards and personal drive.

Nudge Theory

This article gives you a rundown on the biggest behavior change buzzword: nudge.
Nudging works by subtly tweaking our environment so that the preferred option stands
out or is easier to pick. Think of putting healthier snacks at eye level to encourage better
eating or setting up default options for retirement savings to get more people to save.

Gamification

If you want people to do things, you have to make it fun. This is the basic idea behind
gamification, where game design elements are used to motivate people to achieve
various goals. Think about language learning platforms where you earn coins for
completing a lesson, or fitness apps that reward you with badges for reaching a new
personal best. As you’ll see, gamification allows you to leverage people’s inherent
enjoyment from games while promoting behavior change.

Habits
Whether you realize it or not, most of what you do day-to-day is some sort of habit.
Brushing your teeth before bed, checking your phone first thing in the morning, and taking
the same route to work every day are all examples of habits. These actions feel instinctual,
almost second nature, which makes it clear that the habit-forming mechanism is a
powerful tool we can harness to drive meaningful behavior change.

Motivational Interviewing

Wanting to change is often not the problem—many of us recognize when something is just
not working. But finding the motivation to actually change it is another problem altogether.
This article will introduce you to motivational interviewing, a counseling technique that
aims to boost intrinsic motivation (the stuff you need to really change things in the long
run).

What to Expect When You're Diagnosing

Dr. Cynthia Borja

4 min read

Jun 28, 2024

In part one of our series on behavioral diagnoses for student success initiatives, we
explored the importance of leveraging the data that you, as an education administrator or
instructor, already have at your university to improve academic outcomes. Viewing
existing data through a behavioral science lens can provide you with insights you can use
to help you tailor your student success strategies and design more successful
interventions.

Although analyzing your initial data is a great starting point, it unfortunately doesn’t mean
it’ll be sufficient to work with—in fact, it might just incite the need for more investigation.
Think of the world of medicine: to fully understand how healthy you are, you may start by
looking at whether you get enough exercise or sleep, but, at times, you may also need to
run a series of blood tests or get an X-ray to have a more in-depth look at what is going
on inside your body. In the case of education, you can also get a more in-depth X-ray of
your student population by conducting a behavioral diagnosis from scratch.

While conducting a behavioral diagnosis from the ground up is by no means a small feat,
it can help you design student success initiatives with an even more profound impact.

Here’s what you can expect when you’re diagnosing!

Executing a Behavioral Diagnosis: What, How, When, Who, and Why?

Although universities gather a lot of data on students, it is often not inherently collected
using a behavioral science perspective. Looking at this kind of data can tell you that
students engage in particular behaviors (such as procrastinating on
assignments). Interpreting this data using a behavioral lens can help you plan targeted
interventions (such as having students use precommitment strategies), often based on
patterns in the data and existing research on the topic. However, since the data was not
originally gathered using this lens, it often fails to provide insights into why students
behave in a particular way.

In a behavioral diagnosis, data gathering is purposefully designed.

What does it mean to purposefully design data gathering? It means that you need to have
a deliberate plan guiding your data collection initiatives. This entails careful consideration
of a series of factors that help you guarantee that the data you collect is not only accurate
but also relevant and useful when it comes to understanding and addressing the
behaviors you are studying.

When executing a behavioral diagnosis from the ground up, data must
be purposefully collected. This means that

• what you ask

• how you ask it,

• when you ask it, and

 • who you ask it to

all flow naturally from why you’re asking it from a behavioral science perspective.

In practice, this means:

• What you ask: Choose the questions you want to ask having a clear objective in
mind. Your questions should be designed to gather the information that directly
relates to the behaviors you are looking to understand and the underlying reasons
for those behaviors.

• How you ask it: Make sure you think through how you are asking your questions.
How are you wording it (do you ask it as a question or a statement)? How are you
formatting it (is it open-ended, a Likert scale, ranking, forced-choice, or something
else entirely)? In what context are you asking these questions (is it an online survey
or an in-person interview)? Determining how to ask a question is important to
ensure that respondents can give you an honest and accurate response.

• When you ask it: Timing is crucial! You should collect data at the moments that are
most likely to provide you with insightful and relevant information. For example,
asking at the beginning of the semester versus right in the middle of finals week
might give you very different responses.

• Who you ask: You can’t interact with every single person at your university, right?
(You can try, but I am pretty sure you won’t succeed!) Will you talk to professors or
students? If students, will you talk to all students or students from a particular
educational level, major, or those with specific characteristics (such as those with
a GPA under 3)? Selecting the right people to talk to is key in making sure you
gather insights that are relevant to the issue at hand!

• Why you ask it: Always ask yourself, “What is the objective?” Each question should
have a clear purpose related to digging deeper into the behaviors you are trying to
understand. This helps ensure that you don’t just collect random, “interesting” data,
but data that is actually targeted and helps inform diagnosis and the interventions
you may execute. (This is the same in the medical world! For instance, just
 because it is interesting to know what my cholesterol reading is, that might not help
me understand what to do about a broken wrist!)

The exact details of how to run a behavioral diagnosis vary depending on many factors.
Organizational needs, context, and resources, among others, all come into play. However,
as a general, high-level outline, here are the steps you can anticipate when you are
diagnosing…

Step One: Determining What You Want to Achieve

The first step is determining what you want to achieve. What challenges are you trying to
tackle? What is the gap you are trying to fill? For example, you may have noticed high
attrition rates. Or, perhaps, the teachers in your university report that students seem
unmotivated and disengaged. Maybe you’ve recently noticed that more and more
students are “falling through the cracks” in the system. A solid understanding of the
“problem,” “challenge,” or “gap” helps you inform all other steps of your diagnosis.

When thinking about the “challenge,” it is often common to find that each stakeholder
within the organization has a slightly different perspective. For instance, while a teacher
might feel that the school resources and materials available to students may need
updating, administrators may be more focused on budget constraints and resource
allocation.

So, how do you go about determining a single challenge to tackle that everyone can get
behind? Methods like interviews, brainstorming sessions, or even alignment sessions are
common at this stage. Perhaps holding a brainstorming session with teachers to
understand how and why they believe resources need to be updated may prove useful.
Or it may be more helpful to interview school administrators from different departments,
including those in charge of budget, student resources, and student well-being, among
others to get a variety of perspectives on the topic. These methods can help you navigate
through the many different opinions that internal stakeholders might have in order to find
common ground.

Step Two: Reviewing What is Already Known

Next, you may be tempted to run interviews and a survey with your students to gather
information about them. Great idea… but stop! This is where things get tricky! Before
jumping into things, don’t forget to incorporate behavioral science principles into the
interview and survey design! Lest you run the risk of having one more dataset that you
have to try to leverage but have a hard time doing since it is not designed through this
perspective!

For a solid, evidence-based behavioral diagnosis, after you have identified the challenge,
it is important to engage with scientific articles or reports, and perhaps even some
international NGO websites, that already address the topic. Understanding what research
in fields like psychology, decision-making, neuroscience, and education have to say about
the issue can guide your decision on the core topics and areas the rest of your process
will focus on.

Looking at the literature from a behavioral perspective will help you sift through
the gazillion results you may get when searching Google Scholar for articles that may be
of interest to you (a quick, fairly specific Google Scholar search for student
succes+attrition+universtiy limited to resources published after 2020 renders a whopping
17,000 results!). This “filter” will help you hone into areas to target in a feasible and
manageable way through interventions. In fact, you may even use this stage to start
developing some initial hypotheses that you can further dig into during the next stages!

Step Three: Digging Deeper with a Mixed Methods Approach

After delving into the literature, ideally, you would engage your students using a series of
methods that will provide you with mixed (qualitative and quantitative) data about the
problem. Interviews and focus groups, for example, may be a great way to obtain some
deep qualitative insights about the topics you have decided to focus on. Meanwhile, for a
broader look at student emotions, beliefs, and behaviors as they relate to the challenge
you are tackling, you may decide to run a large-scale quantitative survey across your
university.

In both cases, the instruments you use should be designed using a behavioral perspective
that tries to elicit responses not only about what the students’ behavior is, but
also how and why it is occurring. The questions you would ask here, not only in interviews
but also in surveys, should be planned through considering particular behavioral
hypotheses. For example, you may want to ask about barriers that individuals face when
trying to engage with an intervention that you already use. Alternatively, you may be
looking to understand more about why students engage in particular behaviors or what
they think about a specific aspect of their educational experience.

While you may start off by gathering qualitative data and use it to help inform and give
shape to your quantitative instrument, or start with quantitative data gathering to then use
the qualitative data to dig deeper into some of the patterns, the important thing about this
stage is better understanding the students themselves: their perspectives, behaviors,
motivations, barriers, drivers, and other behavioral insights. Unfortunately, just finding out
more information about their attendance rates, gender, age, or other demographic data
won’t cut it!

Step Four: Analyzing the Data

Finally, you should analyze all of your new data using a behavioral lens. In this step, you
would consider the behavioral and cognitive patterns that may influence student well-
being, academic performance, and achievement, among other things. You should usually
seek to identify the connection between the what, the how, the when, the who, and, most
importantly, the why of student behavior. Hypothetically, you might expect to see the
following:

• What: Are my students performing as expected? No, my students are

underperforming academically.

• How: How are students approaching challenges in the classroom? They are
approaching them as obstacles, rather than growth opportunities.

• When: When are students challenged most in the classroom? During midterms
and finals!

• Who: Who is impacted the most by these challenges? Students who receive
financial aid.
 • Why: Why are students approaching challenges this way? They come from a
sociocultural context that has taught them to fear failure and, consequently, they
fear challenges that may lead to failure!

Step Five: Translating It!

“Ok, great, so now I have a lot of data, and I analyzed it using a behavioral lens. What
now? I want to know what I can do with it!”

This, my friends, is the stage where the art and science of behavioral
science translation comes into play.

Data analytics is all fine and dandy, but if you cannot translate this into actionable
interventions, what is the use? Just as in medicine, we would hope our doctor does not
give us a diagnosis and leaves us “hanging” (“You have strep throat. See ya!”), when it
comes to a behavioral diagnosis, we want to know what we can do about it.

In education, a behavioral diagnosis helps you understand the what, how, when, who, and
why of students’ behaviors. Translation, on the other hand, helps you move
from insights about students to effective interventions to improve student outcomes.

How does this translation process work? Unfortunately, I'm going to leave you hanging on
that one... until next time!

What is Motivational Interviewing?

Motivational interviewing (MI) is a collaborative, person-centered counseling style aimed
at eliciting and strengthening motivation to make positive change.

The Basic Idea

There are many reasons why people might want to make positive changes in their lives,
but there are also many reasons why they might lack the motivation to do so. It could be
overcoming substance abuse, adopting healthier eating, or breaking away from criminal
behavior. But, putting external pressure on a person to make changes to their behavior,
lifestyle, or attitudes is often ineffective; people need to have the motivation to change in
order for change to occur.
In motivational interviewing, practitioners engage with clients in a practical way to help
them find and enhance their own intrinsic motivation for change.2 This occurs in two
stages: first, building motivation to change; and second, strengthening commitment to
change.

The central idea of MI is somewhat paradoxical: For people to be able to change, they
first need to feel accepted as they are.1 To put it plainly, feelings of acceptance boost self-
esteem and help bolster the motivation to change.

One of the main goals of MI is to overcome ambivalence, the conflicted state where
individuals are stuck between wanting to change and not wanting to change. 3 For
example, an individual with serious health problems as a result of heavy drug abuse may
have genuine concerns about the impact of using on their health, but continue to take
drugs despite advice from their doctor. In these cases, the perceived short-term benefits
take precedence over the perceived long-term gains.

MI is based on a set of principles that emphasize the autonomy of the client and a
collaborative therapeutic relationship in which the therapist is viewed as a facilitator rather
than an expert or authority. This is known as the “spirit” of motivational interviewing and
has four components:

Collaboration: The practitioner and client work together as partners. The practitioner
respects the client’s expertise in their own life and avoids an authoritative, confrontational,
or prescriptive stance.

Evocation: Rather than imposing reasons for change from the outside, MI aims to draw
out and cultivate the client’s own motivations and resources for change.

Acceptance: Practitioners demonstrate an accepting attitude toward clients by valuing the

inherent worth of every individual, practicing empathy, respecting and reinforcing the
client’ capacity for self-direction, and affirming the client’s strengths and efforts.

Compassion: Practitioners are conscious of their commitment to the well-being and best
interests of the client—showing empathy and promoting judgment-free communication.

The 4 stages of motivational interviewing

MI is based on 4 distinct processes that provide a structured yet flexible framework for
helping clients navigate the complexities of behavior change. These processes—engaging,
focusing, evoking, and planning—are designed to enhance the effectiveness of MI by
guiding the therapeutic conversation in a way that respects the client's autonomy and
fosters intrinsic motivation.

These processes are not strictly linear; they often overlap and can be revisited as needed
throughout the course of MI. The engagement process, for example, typically comes first
as the therapist and patient develop a rapport, but is also present throughout the
conversation. If engagement is lost at any point, the therapist will stop moving forward
and go back to the engaging process to re-engage the patient.4

Engaging: This is the foundational step where the therapist establishes a trusting and
respectful relationship with the client. Engaging involves active listening, empathy, and
understanding the client’s perspective without judgment.

Focusing: Once engagement is established, the therapist and client work together to
identify and clarify the specific behaviors, issues, or changes that the client wants to
address. This involves setting an agenda and agreeing on the direction for the
conversation.

Evoking: In this process, the therapist helps the client explore their motivations, desires,
and reasons for change. This involves eliciting the client’s own arguments for change and
addressing their ambivalence.

Planning: After the client has expressed a clear motivation to change, the therapist assists
in developing a concrete and actionable plan for making the change. This includes setting
goals, discussing potential strategies, and identifying resources and support systems.

People are the undisputed experts on themselves. No one has been with them longer, or
knows them better than they do themselves. In MI, the helper is a companion who typically
does less than half of the talking.

William R. Miller, co-author of Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change

Key Terms

• Transtheoretical Model of Change: A psychological framework developed by

James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente that outlines the process and stages
individuals go through when changing behavior.

• Person-centred approach: A therapeutic framework and philosophy developed by

psychologist Carl Rogers that places the individual at the center of the care process.
This approach emphasizes the importance of understanding and respecting each
person’s unique experiences, values, and needs.

• Change talk: Verbal statements by the client revealing consideration of, motivation
for, or commitment to change. Change talk reflects the client’s readiness to change
and can be harnessed by the practitioner to facilitate the change process.

History

MI was originally developed in the early 1980s by clinical psychologists William Miller and
Stephen Rollnick to treat alcohol addiction.5 Previous approaches to treating substance
abuse focused heavily on personality disorders and the idea that the patient was “sick”
and incapable of understanding the depth of their addiction. However, there was little to
no scientific evidence to support this view. MI, on the other hand, sought to transform
approaches to addiction treatment by shifting the focus away from what was perceived as
something “wrong” with the patient towards building the individual’s motivation for
change.

The clinical method of MI evolved from and built upon Carl Rogers’ person-centered
approach to clinical science. Rogers, an American psychologist, committed his career to
the scientific study of therapeutic processes and outcomes, particularly in defining and
measuring treatment process variables and testing their relationship to client outcomes
through recording, coding, and analyzing therapy sessions.6 His humanistic theories
about people’s capacity for exercising free choice and self-determination heavily
influenced the “spirit” of MI and the idea that individuals should be their own agents of
change.
At around the same time that Miller and Rollnick were developing MI, psychologists
James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente were also crafting their own model of change.
The Transtheoretical Model (TTM)7 posits that individuals progress through six stages of
change: precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and
termination. Miller and Rollnick’s treatment method provided an example of an
intervention appropriate for clients who are not yet ready or motivated for change,
corresponding to the first three stages of the TTM.8 As a result, MI is now regarded as an
intervention that can facilitate movement through the stages of the TTM. 9

Over the years, the scope of MI has expanded beyond its initial application
to behavior change (increasing or decreasing a particular behavior) to encompass
complex change that may or may not be linked to a specific behavior. An example of this
is forgiveness, an issue that may cause individuals considerable anguish and suffering.
The choice to forgive someone may not result in behavior change, especially if the
forgiven person is no longer around, but can elicit a change that is more cognitive and
affective in nature.9

Today, MI is applied across a range of fields beyond clinical psychology, including health
care, rehabilitation, public health, social work, dentistry, corrections, coaching, and
education. Despite its proliferation, MI still remains a popular approach for treating
addiction; a 2016 survey by Traci Rieckmann, Amanda Abraham, and Brian Bride found
that two thirds of U.S. addiction treatment programs reported using MI. 10

People

William Miller: American clinical psychologist and an emeritus distinguished professor of

psychology and psychiatry at the University of New Mexico who specializes in behavioral
treatments for additions. With his colleague, Stephen Rollnick, Miller developed the
principles of MI.

Stephen Rollnick: British clinical psychologist and professor at Cardiff University’s School
of Medicine. In addition to developing the fundamental principles of MI, Rollnick’s
research focuses on promoting positive behavior change in patients.
Carl Rogers: American psychologist regarded as one of the founders of humanistic
psychology and renowned for his person-centered approach to clinical sciences.

James Prochaska: American psychologist who co-developed the Transtheoretical Model

of Behavior Change (TTM) and contributed a significant body of research to the field of
health psychology.

Carlo DiClemente: American psychologist who co-developed the Transtheoretical Model

of Behavior Change (TTM) and specialized in motivation and behavior change with a
variety of health and addictive behaviors.

Consequences

When it comes to mental health and behavior issues, research shows that MI can
outweigh conventional educational treatment by up to 80%. 11 Telling an individual that
they need to start or stop doing something will only lead to temporary compliance. MI, on
the other hand, fosters intrinsic motivation which promotes sustainable and longer lasting
behavior change. This, in turn, translates into greater engagement with, and adherence
to, treatment, and a reduction in relapse risks.

MI also comes top of the class when compared to other therapeutic approaches. A study
conducted by Henny Westra, Michael Constantino, and Martin Antony, for example,
looked at the difference in effectiveness between MI and cognitive-behavioral therapy
(CBT) in treating anxiety disorder. In a randomized trial, they split participants into two
groups, one of which received MI sessions while the other received CBT sessions. Over
a 12-month period, twice as many participants dropped out of the CBT group compared
to the MI group.12

In addition to fostering change, MI can also have a significant impact on confidence, both
for the patient and the practitioner. For patients, MI’s focus on their autonomy and own
decision-making processes leads to greater self-efficiency and empowerment. For
practitioners, MI training can lead to greater confidence when speaking to patients about
their condition, which improves job satisfaction.13

Controversies
So far, we’ve painted quite a rosy picture of MI. However, as with all approaches and
methodologies, MI has its challenges, the main one being ethics. Practitioners, including
MI’s co-developer William Miller, have raised and explored concerns about the potential
for MI to be used manipulatively.14 As Miller explains, problems around motivation arise
when the practitioner perceives a issue and the client doesn’t not share this perception.
In a worst-case scenario, practitioners might inadvertently or intentionally steer clients
toward changes that align more with the practitioner’s values or goals rather than those
of the client. Miller proposes a continuum of levels of readiness to change, and of
therapeutic strategies ranging from passivity to coercion. Ideally, MI sits in the middle of
these two extremes, seeking to evoke intrinsic motivation for change rather than coerce
patients into making change.

So how can we be sure that MI is practiced ethically? Well, through training and long-term
coaching. However, concerns have also been raised about levels of MI training
proficiency and a lack of ongoing training, supervision, and follow up in healthcare
settings.15 As with any skill, practitioners’ MI abilities decline over time without post-
training feedback and continued coaching.16 This can have a negative impact in a number
of areas, such as weakening the therapeutic alliance between provider and patient,
inconsistent application of MI techniques, and deviation from the ‘spirit’ and core
principles.

Case Study

Cancer patients and survivors

The adverse effects of cancer diagnosis and treatment (such as fatigue, depression, pain,
and social isolation) can have a significant impact on a patient’s motivation and ability to
engage in recommended levels of healthy behaviors. The time when an initial diagnosis
is given and treatment begins is what nutritional scientists Wendy Demark-Wahnefried
and colleagues describe as a ‘teachable moment’ during which oncologists can advise
and motivate patients to engage in behavior change. 17 Unfortunately, this early stage is
also when these adverse effects can have their maximum impact on an individual’s
capacity to maintain or improve healthy behaviors.
However, a large body of research suggests that MI can encourage patients to adopt or
adhere to healthier habits and engage in physical activity, which can improve overall well-
being and potentially enhance treatment outcomes. 18 A systematic review of 15 studies
using MI in cancer patients and survivors found that this method was particularly
successfully for addressing lifestyle behaviors, such as diet, exercise, and
smoking.19 More specifically, MI has been applied to ‘exercise oncology,’ a practice aimed
at mitigating symptom burden and improving overall health during treatment through
physical activity. Studies show that MI, combined with other motivational strategies such
as a pedometer, print material, and emails, can have significant beneficial effects on the
total physical activity of cancer patients.20

Organizational change

Although commonly associated with health behaviors, MI can be applied to a range of

contexts in which change is desired. In organizations across the globe, change is seen as
an important process necessary for enhancing employee engagement, driving innovation,
increasing productivity, and improving customer or client satisfaction. However, change
can also cause uncertainty and anxiety among employees, leading to resistance and
ambivalence towards change initiatives.

A study by change management consultant Conrado Grimolizzi-Jensen tested the

effectiveness of MI in helping employees resolve ambivalent attitudes towards
organizational change initiatives. In the experiment, 56 employees were split into
experimental and control groups, with the former receiving three sessions of MI over a
30-day period (the control group received no sessions). Grimolizzi-Jension found that
exposure to MI significantly increased readiness to change, as compared to the control
group, ultimately resulting in more successful change initiatives.21

Related TDL Content

The COM-B Model for Behavior Change

There are various frameworks and models for helping us understand and promote
behavior change. Choosing which one to use depends on the behavior change you’re
trying to achieve. The COM-B model, which proposes three necessary components
(capability, opportunity, motivation) for any behavior to occur, is part of the furniture in the
world of behavioral science. This article explores what the COM-B model is, what it’s used
for, and how it was developed.

Active Listening

Another of Carl Rogers’ inventions, active listening is a common communication

technique which has been applied in a range of scenarios. Like motivational interviewing,
active listening appears in healthcare situations to improve patient communication. Learn
more about the strategy in this article.

References

1. Miller, W. (n.d.) The Power of Acceptance. Psychwire [video].

https://psychwire.com/free-resources/motivational-interviewing

2. Miller, W. (n.d.). Homepage. William Miller. https://williamrmiller.net

3. Hall, K., Gibbie, T., & Lubman, D. I. (2012). Motivational interviewing

techniques. Australian Family Physician, 41(9).

4. State of Colorado. (n.d.). The 4 Processes of MI. State of Colorado Division of Criminal
Justice. https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/epic/epicwebsite/resources/mi_communities_of_pr
actice/4_processes/4_processes.pdf

4. Hartney, E. (2023, November 14). Understanding Motivational

Interviewing. VerywellMind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-motivational-
interviewing-22378

5. Miller, W. R., & Moyers, T. B. (2017). Motivational Interviewing and the Clinical
Science of Carl Rogers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(8), 757-766.

6. Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and Processes of Self-Change

of Smoking: Toward an Integrative Model of Change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 51(3), 390-395.

7. Miller, W. R. (2023). The evolution of motivational interviewing. Behavioural and

Cognitive Psychotherapy, 51(6), 616-632.
8. Hoy, J., Natarajan, A., & Petra, M. M. (2016). Motivational Interviewing and the
Transtheoretical Model of Change: Under-Explored Resources for Suicide
Intervention. Community Mental Health Journal, 52(5), 559-567.

9. Miller, W. R. (2023). The evolution of motivational interviewing. Behavioural and

Cognitive Psychotherapy, 51(6), 616-632.

10. Rieckmann, T. R., Abraham, A. J., & Bride, B. E. (2016). Implementation of

Motivational Interviewing in Substance Use Disorder Treatment: Research Network
Participation and Organizational Compatibility. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 10(6), 402-
407.

11. Takemura, N. et al. (2023). Effectiveness of motivational strategies on physical

activity behavior and associated outcomes in patients with cancer: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 21(3), 253-262.

12. Westra, H. A., Constantino, M. J., & Antony, M. M. (2016). Integrating motivational
interviewing with cognitive-behavioral therapy for severe generalized anxiety disorder. An
allegiance-controlled randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 84(9), 768-782.

13. Stoffers, P. J., & Hatler, C. (2017). Journal of Nurses Professional Development,
33(4), 189-195.

14. Miller, W. R. (1994). Motivational Interviewing: III. On the Ethics of Motivational

Intervention. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 22(2), 111-123.

15. Weisner, C., & Satre, D. D. (2016). A key challenge for motivational interviewing:
training in clinical practice. Addiction, 111(7), 1154-1156.

16. Schwalbe, C. S., Oh, H. Y., & Zweben, A. (2014). Sustaining motivational interviewing:
a meta-analysis of training studies. Addiction, 109, 1287-1294.

17. Demark-Wahnefried, W. et al. (2018). Weight management and physical activity

throughout the cancer care continnum. CA Cancer J Clin., 68(3): 232.
18. Harkin, K. et al. (2023). The impact of motivational interviewing on behavioural
change and health outcomes in cancer patients and survivors. A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Maturitas, 170, 9-21.

19. Spencer, J. C., & Wheeler, S. B. (2016). A systematic review of Motivational

Interviewing interventions in cancer patients and survivors. Patient Educ Couns., 99(7),
1099-1105.

20. Takemura, N. et al. (2023). Effectiveness of motivational strategies on physical

activity behavior and associated outcomes in patients with cancer: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 21(3), 253-262.

21. Grimolizzi-Jensen, C. J. (2017). Organizational Change: Effect of Motivational

Interviewing on Readiness to Change. Journal of Change Management, 18(1), 54-69.

What is Choice Architecture?

Choice architecture refers to the deliberate crafting of decision-making environments. By
subtly shaping how options are presented, choice architecture influences individual
decision-making, often without their explicit awareness.
The Basic Idea

Before heading to the grocery store, you make a list of the items you need. Eggs, milk,
and bread. “I won’t buy anything other than these,” you tell yourself. As you wander down
the aisles of the store, a large sale sign catches your eye: there’s a shelf of all your favorite
snacks, labelled “2 for $8”. “What a steal!” you think to yourself, grabbing four packages
without realizing that the original price was $3.99 per item. Once you get home, you
realize you spent more than you intended and wonder how this happened yet again.
Would you have bought the items if you realized you were saving $0.02?

This is an example of choice architecture, which means that our decisions are influenced
by the way that choices are presented. 1 To this end, a choice architect is someone who
creates the environment that influences decision-making. In the situation above,
consumer decisions are influenced by directing their attention to a sale, which we
associate with being good, by default. Choice architecture is related to libertarian
paternalism and nudge theory, which proposes that positive reinforcement and implicit
suggestions can influence behavior. 2 However, choice architecture is not always used to
benefit those making decisions. 1

“
The first misconception is that it is possible to avoid influencing people’s choices.
– Richard Thaler, Nobel Prize winning behavioral economist for his nudge theory
Key terms

Choice architecture: The presentation of choices in different ways will impact decision
making.

Choice architect: Someone who frames information and designs the presentation of
choices. Many people turn out to be choice architects, without realizing it.

Libertarian paternalism: The idea that it is both possible and legitimate for institutions to
influence behavior while also respecting freedom of choice (i.e. without coercion).

Nudge: Any aspect of choice architecture that alters behavior in a predictable way, without
forbidding options or significantly changing economic incentives.

Reinforcement: Strengthening the likelihood of a future behavior. Positive reinforcement

adds a desirable consequence while negative reinforcement removes an undesirable
consequence associated with the behavior.

History

Choice architecture first emerges with Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s 2008
book, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness.2 Thaler coined
the term choice architecture to describe how insights from behavioral economics could
be used to influence choices, without changing their objective values. In the context
of Nudges, choice architecture was said to minimize biases that result from bounded
rationality . Limitations such as cognitive capabilities, the difficulty of the problem, and
the time available to make a decision could be overcome if choice architects nudge
humans toward beneficial choices.

When expanding on choice architecture, the researchers drew inspiration from cognitive
scientist and design researcher Donald Norman’s 1990 book, The Design of Everyday
Things.1 The main lesson from Norman’s book was that designers must remember
humans are confronted daily with a multitude of choices and cues, so products must be
designed for ease of use. Thaler and Sunstein aimed to develop the same idea for choice
architects: by detailing principles of effective choice architecture, the researchers wanted
to help choice architects better design their environments to match how humans behave.
To achieve this goal, Thaler and his colleagues highlighted six “tools” for choice
architects: (1) understanding defaults ; (2) expecting errors; (3) providing feedback; (4)
understanding mappings; (5) structuring complex choices; and (6) incentivizing .
For understanding that people are more likely to choose default options (1), defaults are
defined as the choices that people must take active steps to avoid, such as being enrolled
in student health insurance. 1 To combat defaults, choice architects can require people to
make their own choices, such as developing the student health insurance form to be
empty, with students required to either opt in or opt out by checking one of two boxes.

As for understanding mapping (4), this refers to exploring the different ways that the
presentation of information can influence option comparison. 1 For example, mapping
choices between ice cream flavors is much easier and less riskier than mapping choices
of health treatments. The researchers suggest that good choice architects should improve
people’s ease of mapping choices, which can be done by making information about the
various options more comprehensible.

Finally, choice architects should be cognizant about how they structure complex choices
(5), since people are more likely to adopt simplifying strategies as the number of choices
increase.1 As options increase in number and become more complex, choice architects
have more opportunity to present information in a way that will be more likely to influence
behavior.

Starting out with the broader theory of nudges, Thaler and colleagues moved on to detail
the six principles of good choice architecture. By providing examples of choice
architecture and suggestions for choice architects, the researchers expanded on choice
architecture to improve behavioral outcomes.

People
Richard Thaler
Richard Thaler has researched applied decision making for over four decades. 3 Thaler’s
work has focused on how decisions made by both individuals and institutions alike are
influenced by cognitive limitations and biases, refuting the assumption of economic theory
that humans always act rationally and selfishly. He has identified many influences on
behavior such as bounded rationality, social preferences [for fairness], and lack of self-
control, to name a few. Thaler was awarded the 2017 Nobel Prize for Economics for his
contributions regarding nudge theory. Specifically, the award was presented on the basis
that Thaler’s contributions have bridged economic and psychological analyses of decision
making, synthesizing research that has been critical for the expansion of behavioral
economics.
Cass Sunstein
Working alongside Thaler to develop Nudges and expand on choice architecture, Cass
Sunstein has not only worked on behavioral economics, but he is also an American legal
scholar.4 Sunstein received his J.D. from Harvard Law School and has since worked on
administrative, behavioral, constitutional, environmental, employment, and labor law. His
impressive history landed him a position with the Obama administration from 2009 to
2012, working as the Administrator to the White House Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs. Sunstein has advised officials at the European Commission, the World
Bank, and the United Nations regarding law and public policy. He is also an advisor to the
UK’s Behavioural Insights Team, further applying his expertise in behavioral economics.
Consequences

Supported by the 2017 Nobel Prize for Economics, Nudge theory and choice architecture
have had a large influence on behavioral economics research, as well as policy
making.2 Advocates of libertarian paternalism have supported choice architecture to
nudge consumers toward desirable behaviors such as choosing healthier foods,
registering as an organ donor, 5 signing up for health care, and even saving for
retirement.6

Choice architecture has also been impactful on significant policy making groups: Sunstein
was appointed to lead the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and
the Behavioural Insights Team was established under the UK’s Cabinet Office. 7 Other
countries soon followed in forming similar organizations, and international institutions
such as the World Bank, the European Union, the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development, and UN agencies adopted behavioral insight units. Teams
at the federal level such as Germany’s office of Federal Chancellor in Policy Planning Unit
and the White House’s “Nudge Unit” work directly with implementing agencies to
diagnose, design, test, and evaluate interventions informed by choice architecture.

Since the implementation of nudges and choice architecture, research by behavioral

economics including Sunstein and Thaler has shown that nudges are much more cost-
effective than traditional policies in the domains of financial security, education, job
training, and health, to name a few. 8 The comparative advantages of choice architecture
will normally be larger when policy objects are to change daily behaviors of people who
are making biased, rushed, and imperfect decisions. In this context, imperfection is
determined by reference to the welfare of said people. The researchers acknowledge that
nudges often work with other tools such as simplifying procedures, but show that choice
architecture can be beneficial nonetheless, regarding both cost and efficacy.

While Thaler and colleagues provided the first detailed account of choice architecture and
the six associated principles, 1 other behavioral scientists divided the “tools” into two
categories: (1) those that structure the choice task; and (2) those that describe the choice
options.9 The former addresses the issue of what information and options choice
architects should present, and the latter focuses on how to present said options. When
structuring the choice task, choice architects should pay special consideration to the
number of alternatives, decision aids such as technology, defaults, choice over time, and
how task structure affects the way people consider their options. As for describing choice
options, choice architects should carefully divide options into groups and design the
attributes associated with their options.

Controversies

Despite the popularity of nudge theory and choice architecture, there is still some
criticism. Although libtertarian paternalism is built on the foundation that behavior can be
influenced without any coercion, respecting freedom of choice, the main concern is
whether choice architecture is ethical. 10 In fact, Sunstein has been called “the most
dangerous man in America'' for his role in behavioral economics and policy, by
Conservative commentator Glenn Beck.

By designing options to overcome decision making biases, choice architects may only be
able to do so by imposing costs on agency, such as limiting choices. 11 Although
individuals are free to choose between the choices presented to them, the original design
of choices may threaten autonomy. Economist and philosopher Luc Bovens claims that
choice architecture leaves people with “fragmented selves” as they behave one way
under nudges, that they would not otherwise behave. 10 The main point of criticisms
around the ethics of choice architecture is that, if people become used to being nudged,
we may become passive and tolerable of more controlling tactics, similar to a “Big Brother”
world.

Nudging has been labelled by some as a “rationality paradox”, such that it represents an
approach that emphasizes bounded rationality without reflecting on its own limits to
rationality.12 If individual decision making is limited in rationality, then the policy groups
composed of individuals are also limited. Although governments possess superior
resource bases relative to those of individuals - in terms of knowledge, finances,
organization, and authority - and have safeguards in place, at the heart of these
organizations are people who are individually limited in their rationality. This means that
bounded rationality cannot be dismissed on the basis of having more resources, which
lends to the question of whether such institutions are in a position to nudge others through
policy.

Case Study
Defaults in organ donation systems

The discrepancy between demand and supply over transplantable organs is a significant
health problem, especially for developing countries. 13 Thus, policy debates in such
countries focus on solving this shortage and mostly compares two systems: explicit
consent versus presumed consent. In the former, the default is that nobody is a donor
unless they explicitly register and opt in. The main drawback with the explicit consent
system is that donation rates tend to be low, and less than reported willingness to donate.
On the other hand, the presumed consent system registers every adult as a donor unless
they explicitly opt out. However, a drawback with presumed consent is that families of a
deceased relative may object on their behalf and withdraw consent, which lowers
donation rates and governments can be seen as taking advantage of citizens’ consent.

To address these issues, researchers from the Netherlands considered a third option: a
system of mandated choice. 13 In this situation, there is no default and citizens have to
actively make a choice. The researchers used hypothetical choices from a national survey
in 2011, and chose to sample citizens of the Netherlands in which there is an explicit
consent system in place. 2069 individuals aged 16 years and older were divided into three
groups representing the explicit consent, presumed consent, and mandated choice
systems. Participants were asked whether they would stay with the default or actively opt
in or out for explicit and presumed consent, respectively, and whether they would opt in
or out for mandated choice. All participants were also given the choice to answer that they
didn’t know.

The results of the study showed that - at least in the Netherlands, which is a country with
an explicit consent system - both systems of mandated choice and presumed consent
were more effective than explicit consent in increasing the number of registered
donors.13 The researchers suggest that people may be more inclined to register in the
mandated choice system than the explicit consent system due to humans’ propensities to
procrastinate when making decisions. Such an explanation would support the power of
defaults and encouragement for choice architects to mandate choices, as suggested by
Thaler and colleagues in the first principle of choice architecture. 1 While results from a
study in the Netherlands does not guarantee equivalent results in developing countries
that are experiencing an organ shortage, the results suggest that a mandated choice
system should be considered in policy debates and points to the power of defaults in
which people are opted out.

Save More Tomorrow: Easy and painless retirement

As average life expectancies increase, the time spent in retirement commonly increases
as well, subsequently increasing the money required for security and comfort. The life
cycle theory in economics holds that the general population will solve this problem like
economists would, by calculating their required savings and distributing their finances to
match this.14 However, this is not always the case, due to two reason: it is difficult to make
such calculations, and in the case that correct calculations are made, people may lack the
required self-control to appropriately reduce their consumption rates.

Richard Thaler and behavioral economist Shlomo Benartzi recognized that people have
a loss-aversion bias: when people are forced to cut their present spending to save for their
pension, they perceive a loss instead of a future gain. 14 This is where the problem of self-
control ties in. Additionally, people tend to procrastinate when making decisions,
especially for unpleasant or difficult tasks. While people may want to save for retirement,
they keep putting it off. This leads to the status quo bias , allowing people to remain in
their current situation regardless of what they know the rational optimal choice is.

To address these issues and to help people save for retirement, Thaler and behavioral
economist Benartzi designed the Save More Tomorrow plan. 14 The intervention
implements choice architecture through seemingly simple, but very influential
components. The first aspect is automatically enrolling all employees in a savings plan
right when they become eligible. This means that while employees can choose to opt out
of the plan, their default choice is a commitment. The second aspect is that increases in
savings rates are linked to future pay raises. This way, take-home pay always increases
and deductions are taken from money that the employee was not used to having, helping
overcome loss aversion .

Thaler and Benartzi’s intervention of choice architecture has proven to nudge a higher
savings rate for long-term gains and has appealed to people who were not otherwise
interested in a savings plan. 14 Designed in 2004, it was enforced as part of the Pension
Protection Act of 2006, encouraging companies to adopt the core principles. 15

Related TDL Content

Dancing to the tunes of a choice architect

If you’re interested in more examples of choice architecture at work, look no further! This
article provides a great breakdown of how choice architects can influence behaviors
through their design of choices, as well as how we can use our awareness of choice
architecture to move forward.

Giving people the tools to nudge themselves

Moving past research on the effectiveness of nudges, some people wonder if implicitly
influencing others’ behaviors is ethical. Who is in a position to make the decisions of a
choice architect for someone else? An interview with Samuli Reijula, a researcher who
has studied how nudging interventions can be used as an individual tool, provides some
alternatives to consider. If nudging others is indeed unethical, perhaps we can nudge
ourselves!

Sources

1. Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., & Balz, J. P. (2013). Choice architecture. The
Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy, 428-439.
2. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health,
Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press.
3. Duigan, B. (2020, September 8). Richard Thaler. Encyclopedia
Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Richard-Thaler
4. Harvard Law School. (n.d.). Cass R.
Sunstein. https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10871/Sunstein
5. Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science,
302(5649), 1338-1339.
6. Benartzi, S., Peleg, E., & Thaler, R. H. (2013). Choice architecture and retirement
saving plans. The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy, 245-263.
7. Afif, Z. (2017, October 25). “Nudge units” - Where they came from and what they
can do. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/nudge-
units-where-they-came-and-what-they-can-do
8. Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. K., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar,
M., ... & Galing, S. (2017). Should governments invest more in
nudging? Psychological Science, 28(8), 1041-1055.
9. Johnson, E. J., Shu, S. B., Dellaert, B. G. C., Fox, C., Goldstein, D. G., Häubl, G.,
… & Weber, E. U. (2012). Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture. Marketing
Letters, 23(2), 487-504.
 10. Selinger, E., & White, K. (2011). Is there a right way to nudge? The practice and
ethics of choice architecture. Sociology Compass, 5(10), 923-935.
11. Mitchell, G. (2004). Libertarian paternalism is an oxymoron. Northwestern
University Law Review, 99(3), 1245-1287.
12. Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2016). The rationality paradox of nudge: Rational tools
of government in a world of bounded rationality. Law & Policy, 38(3), 250-267.
13. Van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2014). Comparing the effects of defaults in organ
donation systems. Social science & Medicine, 106, 137-142.
14. Thaler, R. H. & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save More Tomorrow: Using behavioral
economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112(1),
164-187.
15. Save More Tomorrow. (2017). Shlomo
Benartzi. http://www.shlomobenartzi.com/save-more-tomorrow

Behavior change frameworks

Behavior change, frameworked
Behavior change can be as varied as the issue it's trying to solve—just think about all the
different problems there are out there. It’s not surprising that many different toolkits have
been created to tackle all of that. Now that you’ve put some thought into learning the
ingredients of a good behavior change toolkit, let’s walk through some of the ‘pre-
packaged’ toolkits out there—also called behavior change frameworks. As you’ll see, while
all behavior change frameworks broadly try to get some ‘behavior change’, they can differ
wildly from each other. Some, like COM-B and the Transtheoretical Model (TTM), try to
cover a lot of ground, providing comprehensive approaches that encompass various
stages and factors influencing behavior change. Others, like the Fogg Behavior Model,
focus on more specific aspects, offering targeted strategies for particular contexts or types
of behavior. By exploring these different frameworks, you’ll be able to adapt to whatever
project needs are in front of you.
Obligatory AI sidenote
It’s important to note that while we talk about behavior change frameworks as something
meant to be wielded by humans, oftentimes the behavior change interventions we see in
digital environments (where many of us spend the majority of our productive hours) are a
combination of human thought and some sort of algorithmic magic. So, while these
behavior change frameworks represent a codified and human-centric approach to
designing interventions, much of the behavior change we experience may be happening
through methods like deep learning and reinforcement learning . However, behavior
change can go both ways—that is, the concepts described in the frameworks below are
sometimes adapted for machine learning contexts to help us create better algorithms. For
instance, the "Reward Modeling" approach attempts to shape AI behavior by carefully
designing reward functions, much like how positive reinforcement works in human
psychology. This cross-pollination between human and AI behavior change theories is
opening up new frontiers in both fields, raising intriguing questions about the nature of
behavior, decision-making, and even consciousness itself.
Back to our regular programming

The behavior change frameworks below represent some of the most widely used and
researched approaches in the field. Each has its strengths and limitations, and
understanding them will give you a robust toolkit for addressing various behavior change
challenges:

COM-B Model (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behavior)

So we’ve established that there is a behavior you want to change, promote, or stop—but
what are the components that will make it happen? This article will introduce you to the
COM-B model, which focuses on an individual’s levels of Capability, Opportunity, and
Motivation to result in a Behavior. This model was introduced as a way to fill in the gaps
of past behavior change strategies and has since been used to drive more effective and
targeted intervention strategies.

Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

Pause for a moment and ask yourself: what makes you tick? This article on self-
determination theory gives you a unique way to understand why we do what we do. The
theory says we're driven by three main things: the need for autonomy, relatedness, and
competence. Intrinsic motivation is one of our most precious resources, and by using
SDT, we can better understand it and create interventions that are more sustainable in
the long run.

EAST (Easy, Attractive, Social, Timely)

Another simple outline for behavior change is the EAST framework. Used for larger-scale
policymaking, the EAST framework suggests that for the best outcomes, behavior change
needs to be Easy, Attractive, Social, and Timely. This means making the desired behavior
as simple as possible (Easy), highlighting the benefits to make it appealing (Attractive),
leveraging social influence (Social), and timing interventions when they are most likely to
be effective (Timely). Read the full article to discover how this framework can be applied!

MINDSPACE Framework

Take a look at the MINDSPACE framework, another handy tool for nudging behavior
change. It stands for Messenger, Incentives, Norms, Defaults, Salience, Priming, Affect,
Commitments, and Ego. By focusing on these elements, you can create subtle cues that
guide people toward better choices. For example, setting healthy snacks as the default
option (Defaults) can promote better food choices, or highlighting that most people recycle
(Norms) can encourage eco-friendly behavior.

4E Framework
The best thing about the 4E framework is how adaptable it is—we call it the Swiss Army
knife of behavior change. Depending on the industry and goals the acronym changes,
making it incredibly versatile (don’t worry, this page will provide you with some examples).
Whether you're in healthcare, education, or any other field, this framework helps tailor
interventions to fit specific needs to promote desired behaviors.

SaniFOAM

Though many of us take it for granted, around the world not everyone has access to
effective sanitation. And, while the first step is making clean spaces and sanitation
products available, we also have to address the behavior that goes along with it. The
SaniFOAM framework stands for focus, opportunity, ability, and motivation. Read the
complete article to learn about how these components are brought together to promote
the adoption of sanitary habits.

Fogg Behavior Model (FBM)

This framework identifies three key driving forces behind behavior change: motivation,
ability, and prompt. In this article, we explore the Fogg Behavior Model, which highlights
the interesting relationship between these three factors, showing how one can
compensate for another to drive effective behavior change.

CrI2SP Framework

The CrI2SP Framework is a tool often used by organizations and professionals in strategic
planning, especially in fields like public health, sustainability, and development. It helps
guide decision-making by asking five key questions that focus on communication,
resources, incentives, information, society, and psychology. Take a look at this reference
page on the CrI2SP framework and see how it’s put to use to ensure that people have the
support they need to achieve the target outcomes.

Health Belief Model

There are few things more important than our health… yet we don’t always act like it. In
this article, we explore how the Health Belief Model explains and predicts health behaviors
through six key factors—and how we can target those factors to encourage better health
habits.

The Transtheoretical Model (TTM)

Behavior change is anything but linear—and in the early stages, we must plan for failure.
On the road to change, it’s easy to fall back into old habits. When that happens, we need
some extra support to push us forward. In this article, you’ll read about how the
transtheoretical model takes this into account by recognizing six main stages of change
to describe both our readiness for change and its actual execution.
Behavior change in action
As we saw in the previous section, behavior change is a very broad concept—you can apply it to
education, mental health, sneaker design, or space exploration. If you’re just starting to learn about
it, you may find it useful to learn about how it’s being applied in very different contexts, so you
can figure out the common thread for yourself.

This is where our work here at The Decision Lab comes into play. If you’ve never heard of us
before, we’re one of the leading behavior change companies in the world (hi!). We’ve been
working with large organizations across the world for about a decade to try to make the world a
better place through behavior change. Rather than focusing on a single industry, our footprint has
allowed us to work in wildly different contexts across industries, geographies, populations, and
types of organizations.

What's particularly exciting about this cross-industry approach is how it allows for unexpected
insights and innovative solutions. You'd be surprised how often a strategy that works wonders in,
say, finance, can be adapted to create breakthroughs in healthcare or education. This cross-
pollination of ideas is where the magic happens. It's not just about applying a one-size-fits-all
approach to different problems; it's about understanding the core principles of behavior change
and creatively adapting them to each unique context. This approach keeps us on our toes,
constantly learning and evolving our methods. Hopefully, it’s also helpful to you!

To give you a taste of this diversity, let's dive into a few case studies that showcase how behavior
change principles can be applied across vastly different domains:

How to use AI-enabled nudging to mutually benefit managers and employees

Using your resources, AI-enabled nudges can provide personalized feedback tailored to an
employee’s improvement areas and learning style. For managers, this means using AI to analyze
key performance indicators, generate daily performance reports, and optimize workplace
efficiency. Read this article to learn how, by leveraging AI-enabled nudges, businesses can
enhance employee engagement and performance while ensuring ethical and beneficial
interventions.

Amplifying User Abilities: The Behavior-Changing Magic of Digital Accessibility

We can't change people's behavior if they can't use the tools we equip them with. Behavioral
science is all about humans, so those in the field often make sure to consider things, like
accessibility, that others might miss. This insight piece explains why making your product usable
for everyone is the first step in changing behavior.

The City of Rome

Explore how using targeted behavioral messaging helped the City of Rome to reduce the use of
smog-causing diesel vehicles. Through our research, TDL found that citizens care about the
environment, but abstract pollution messages aren’t always effective. We framed the diesel ban to
resonate with Romans by appealing to family values, highlighting the protection of Rome's ancient
monuments, and tapping into national pride for Italy's leadership in climate action.

Insuring Behavior Change

As we mentioned, nudges are the cornerstone of behavioral science, and their power transcends
industries. This case study highlights TDL’s work with a major North American insurance
company to create a nudge unit for more successful sales calls. By addressing behavioral barriers
and designing an effective intervention, we were successful in increasing revenue by millions.

Why Every Affordable Housing Project Needs a Behavioral Science Lens

Many of us know that we’re facing a global housing crisis—so why do we still see pushback when
developers create affordable housing? Dive into this insight piece on NIMBYism (Not In My
Backyard) to learn how behavioral science can help reframe the consequences of construction,
fostering collaboration, and how leveraging a trusted messenger can change people’s ideas and
behavior towards housing projects.

Nudges Aren’t One-Size-Fits-All. Here’s How Personalizing Them Could Change Health
Care

In the digital age, innovation lives in our back pockets and is activated by the tap of a finger. But
as technology evolves, so too must our approach to behavior change. This article explores how
personalized nudges—customized to an individual's unique behavior profile—can be powerful
tools to help patients stay on track with their care plans, leading to better health outcomes.

Conducting an On-the-Ground Behavioral Diagnostic to Increase Clean Cookstove

Adoption

Explore how TDL, in collaboration with the World Bank, worked to increase the adoption of
Improved Cookstoves (ICSs) in Uganda. By using the COM-B model to identify behavioral
adoption barriers, the team uncovered 26 distinct challenges. This analysis led to the development
of 21 evidence-based recommendations, tailored to overcome these barriers and drive adoption.

How to Use Behavior Change Strategies to Unlock a Data-Driven Culture

At the organizational level, behavior change principles are powerful tools for achieving both small
targets and driving larger, company-wide culture shifts. In this article, we go over the widespread
challenge of building a culture that embraces data-driven approaches, as well as share some
insights on how to use behavioral science to your advantage when navigating this transformation.
The Stages of Change: How to Motivate, Facilitate, and Reinforce Desired Behaviors

We don’t just wake up one day, decide to change, and live our new life—change is an ongoing
process. That being said, here are some (behavioral) tips to help you on your quest. Dive into this
article on the stages of change, and see how you can apply behavioral science insights in a practical
way.

Living a Behavioural Analysis

Sometimes we need to take a step back and consider why we do the things we do. Often, this
reflection isn't done systematically, but if you're interested in a more structured approach, this
article introduces the ABCD technique. ABCD stands for Attention, Belief, Choice, and
Determination, and it provides a clear framework for thoughtful experimentation and decision-
making.

Making a career of behavior change

Whether you have a background in one of the sub-fields typically associated with behavior change
or you’re looking to pivot, there are always ways to include more behavior change strategies and
tactics in the work you do… which is why we made this guide in the first place. The beauty of
behavior change is its versatility—it's a skill set that can enhance virtually any career path. From
marketing to public policy, and from healthcare to education, understanding how to influence
human behavior can be a game-changer. It's like having a Swiss Army knife in your professional
toolkit—adaptable, useful in countless situations, and always in demand. That being said, we’re a
social enterprise and we made this guide to help people apply behavior change to make the world
better. Obviously, we can’t enforce this and you might be planning to take this guide and use it to
make people hate puppies or cut down more trees (shoo!). But we’re hoping that in understanding
the toolkit behind behavior change, you also understand that it is, at its core, about aligning with
the needs and desires of human beings. Needs and desires that, if heard well enough, inevitably
lead to positive social change.

What's particularly exciting about pursuing a career in behavior change is the constant evolution
of the field. As our understanding of human psychology deepens and technology advances, new
opportunities are constantly emerging. You might find yourself designing a cutting-edge app one
day and advising on national health policy the next. This dynamism keeps the work fresh and
challenging, perfect for those who love to learn and adapt.

Moreover, a good career in behavior change offers the unique satisfaction of making a tangible
difference in people's lives. Whether you're helping individuals adopt healthier habits, assisting
organizations in creating more productive work environments, or contributing to global initiatives
tackling climate change, your work has the potential to create a real, positive impact. It's a field
where science meets creativity, where data-driven insights fuel innovative solutions to some of
society's most pressing problems.
Here are some resources that might help you as you explore a career in behavior change:

A Guide to Career Paths in Behavioral Science

As you might guess, behavior change principles come from behavioral science. And yes, there are
plenty of careers in this field. Even though it's a young discipline, it's a hot topic, with more
industries realizing the benefits of incorporating behavioral techniques. What was once a choice
between academic and applied spheres has now blossomed into many subfields, all eager to
harness the knowledge behavioral science offers. Whether you're into marketing, health, finance,
or tech, this practical guide offers a roadmap to finding your place in behavioral science.

From Theory to Frameworks: Putting Behavioral Science to Work

We’ve already talked about the importance of behavioral frameworks, in this guide you’ll find
some practical tips on how to build your own. Whether you're creating one for personal use,
applying it across an organization, or contributing to the growing body of behavioral science
research, developing frameworks is a powerful way to identify gaps in our understanding and test
established theories in new contexts.

Creating startups through empathy & behavioural research: Dr. Rachel Carey

While we’ve demonstrated how behavioral science exists outside of academia, how do we
specifically apply this lens to a business context? Give this podcast episode a listen to learn about
the importance of collaboration between the applied and academic spheres. When moving from
theory to practice, working together makes certain that nothing gets lost in translation.

The One-Man Behavioral Army: Advice for Practitioners and Managers

A company doesn't need to be labeled as a BehSci firm to apply behavior change principles or hire
a behavioral science expert. By giving you a peek into the life of a resident behavioral scientist at
a large organization, this article offers some tips on how to position yourself and be the most
effective in your role.

How Behavioral Science Can Build Products that Sell Themselves: The Pirate Funnel
Toolkit

Interested in how behavioral science can help create successful products? This article aims to
answer the long-standing question of balancing human connection with scalability. Explore The
Pirate Funnel—a toolkit for growth made up of five principles: Acquisition, Activation, Retention,
Referral, and Revenue. Each of these stages harnesses the power of specific behavior change
principles that get your products into the hands of the right customer.

Applying Behavioral Science In An Organization

If you still have questions about behavior change or what a behavioral scientist does, check out
this article on applying behavioral science in an organization. You'll see how a behavioral scientist
can add value in many ways, far beyond just one area of the business.

Change Agent

Not every company has the resources or capacity to hire a full-time behavioral scientist. When
faced with challenges they can't solve on their own, it's time to consider outsourcing. In this article,
you'll learn about change agents—specialists who use applied behavioral science to tackle
challenges and drive effective change within organizations.

The Mistake That Almost Half of Product Managers Make

Even if you find yourself in a career that isn’t explicitly behavioral, there’s no reason you can’t
sprinkle in some of what you’ve learned—we encourage you to! In this insight piece, you'll explore
the importance of context when working with data and discover how to stay vigilant against
cognitive biases that can influence decision-making.

What is the MINDSPACE Framework?

The MINDSPACE framework is a tool used to integrate principles of behavioral
science in policymaking. It highlights nine important factors that drive all
behavior, messenger (M), incentives (I), norms (N), defaults (D), salience (S),
priming (P), affect (A), commitments (C), and ego (E).
What is a Framework?
Behavior change frameworks are the bedrock of applied behavioral science. Designed
by behavioral scientists for policy makers and industry leaders, these summaries of
cutting edge decision-making insights are essential for applying research in the public
and private spheres. Frameworks distill strategies for influencing human decisions into
simple, portable mnemonic devices or acronyms. This makes it possible for complex,
theoretical insights about how people think and act to make their way into the practices
of organizations across every industry and environment. To understand more about how
these frameworks work in practice, check out our case studies .
The Basic Idea
MINDSPACE is a framework that focuses on nine forces that drive behavior across a
variety of contexts.1 MINDSPACE is not an alternative to current policy making
methods, rather, it complements them to integrate behavioral science into the process.
The creators of the framework recognize that the public shapes the usage of such
behavioral change tools. MINDSPACE has been supported by both field and laboratory
research from behavioral economics and psychology. The nine effects are thought to
have the most robust significance on automatic processes of judgement and influences,
and are outlined below:
Messenger We are heavily influenced by who is communicating information.
Our responses to incentives are shaped by predictable mental shortcuts,
Incentives
such as the strong desire to avoid losses.
Norms We are heavily influenced by what others do.

Defaults We “go with the flow” of pre-set options.

Salience Our attention is drawn to novel things that seem relevant to us.

Priming Our actions are often influenced by subconscious cues.

Affect Our actions can be powerfully shaped by our emotional associations.

We seek to be consistent with our public promises and to reciprocate
Commitments
actions.
Ego We act in ways that make us feel better about ourselves.

Key Terms
Behavioral economics : The study of how people make economically-motivated
decisions.

Behavioral government: Refers to governments who draw on behavioral economics

to adopt a realistic view of human behavior. It is believed that stronger policy can be
developed through an understanding of how biases and heuristics influence people’s
decisions.

MINDSPACE: A mnemonic for the nine effects on human behavior, used to explain
and intervene in a variety of subject areas: messenger, incentives, norms, defaults,
salience, priming, affect, commitments, and ego.

History
MINDSPACE was one of the first behavioral frameworks to be applied in a policy-
making context, laying the groundwork for what has since become a major trend in
countries around the world. The development of this framework started with an
initiative by members of the UK Cabinet Office to study the implications of behavioral
theory for policymaking. 1 The Institute for Government, a UK think tank, was
commissioned to create a report on the subject, alongside academics from the London
School of Economics and Imperial College.

The goal of the report was to explore the application of behavioral theory to public
policy, for use by senior public sector leaders and policymakers. The report was
intended to play a key role in a program designed to build the capacity for behavioral
economics across the UK Civil Service. They grounded their work in interviews with
academics, behavior change experts, and senior civil servants to tie expertise to the
applied context of policy-making.
Creators of the report recognized that most traditional public policy interventions
assumed that people would analyze all information they receive and act in ways that
reflect their best interests, therefore operating under the “reflective mind.” However,
the creators were more interested in shifting the focus away from concrete facts and
information, and towards altering the social context in which people act, where they are
influenced by their “automatic mind.” Importantly, the creators acknowledged that
people sometimes make irrational choices, and wanted to assess the factors that
influenced them. This endeavour set the stage for studying and exploring the nine
factors (MINDSPACE) that influence behavior.

Researchers believed that policymakers could better target their interventions if they
were aware of, and accounted for, such biases and heuristics. The MINDSPACE
report was published on March 2, 2010, by the Institute for Government and the
Cabinet Office. Publication of the comprehensive report resulted in the creation of
the Behavioural Insights Team and popularized the framework of nine robust, non-
coercive influences on behavior.

Important Actors
The Institute for Government

The leading UK think tank, The Institute for Government offers a space to help civil
servants and senior politicians bring about change. 3 It provides research and analysis,
topical commentary, and public events to explore the key challenges facing
government. Members of the Institute for Government pioneered the MINDSPACE
report.

The Behavioural Insights Team (BIT)

Also known as The Nudge Unit, BIT is a UK-based group that aims to improve lives
and communities.4 BIT works with governments, businesses, and charities to tackle
major policy problems. The team was formally established after the publication of the
MINDSPACE report in 2010, based on the seven-person team that worked with the UK
government. At its creation, BIT was the world’s first government institution dedicated
to applying behavioral sciences to policy. BIT continues to use the MINDSPACE report
as a framework to improve policies and public services.
Consequences
The MINDSPACE framework has built the capability for behavioral theory to be used
effectively in government.1 As a result of this framework and others like it, governments
around the world increasingly use behavioral insights to design and enhance their
policies and services.

In 2018, the BIT published a report entitled “ Behavioural Government: Using

behavioural science to improve how governments make decisions.” 3 This report builds
on the MINDSPACE report by acknowledging that government officials and ministers
are influenced by the same heuristics and biases their work aims to address. The report
explores how this happens and how such biases can be mitigated by focusing on three
core areas of policy making:

1. Noticing refers to how information and ideas enter policymaker agendas,

through framing effects (the way an issue is presented) and confirmation
bias (the tendency to seek out evidence that supports one’s views). 3
2. Deliberating refers to how policy ideas are developed. While group discussions
are central to policy making, the illusion of similarity convinces us that others
share our beliefs, which can make policymakers overestimate the extent to which
people will understand or accept a policy. Further, inter-group opposition can
result in rejecting sound arguments on the basis that they come from other
groups, and group reinforcement can result in self-censoring or conformity.
3. Finally, executing refers to how policy intentions are translated into
action. Optimism bias can cause policymakers to overestimate their abilities,
while the illusion of control can cause policymakers to overestimate how much
control they have over certain events.

Acknowledging the biases associated with noticing, deliberating, and executing during
the process of policymaking, the “Behavioural Government” report provides targeted
suggestions to combat each issue.3 The report does a deep dive into each of the biases
and strategies for improvement and highlights why all parties should care about a
behavioral government. MINDSPACE was one of the first attempts to fuse behavioral
science and public policy. It has fueled the impressive work done by the BIT since its
inception, which has touched clients in the UK and around the world.

Frameworks such as MINDSPACE, which “nudge” people in certain directions, have

attracted the attention of academics and policymakers. 2 However, there is concern over
how long the effects of these policy changes last. Some effects appear to be fleeting,
such as those of priming , since they may only last for a short while after exposure to
the prime. This presents an uncertainty, since the level of impact may not be fleeting.
Although the effects of priming may only be activated for a short interval, they can
effectively change a behavior or decision. If priming can influence someone to make a
commitment that results in sustained change, then priming can be thought of as a
“trigger.” On the other hand, some effects may be more self-sustaining: defaults are
based on the “status quo”, which are likely to encourage stability over time. To this end,
there has also been concern over the lack of practical evidence regarding how the effects
may develop over time, to the extent that they actually influence change.

One objective of the MINDSPACE report was to help the UK government become a
behavioral government.1 However, as mentioned, the idea of a behavioral government
has been criticized because government officials are themselves subject to such biased
influences they aim to address. 5 This idea was acknowledged by the BIT and resulted
in the “Behavioural Government” report mentioned above.

Further related to the idea of a behavioral government are critiques of libertarian

paternalism. Essentially, libertarian paternalism refers to the idea that it is possible for
institutions such as governments to influence behavior for the better while also
respecting freedom of choice.6 Examples of criticisms regarding libertarian paternalism
surround the configuration of new kinds of state and citizen identities: specifically,
certain kinds of policies promoted by such governments infantilize citizens. 7 Rather
than promoting the well-being of citizens, some critics believe freedom is actually
robbed as institutions impose their own values and agendas onto the public. 8 9

Case Study
Safety: Reducing gang violence

A series of initiatives against gang violence have resulted from public fear of increasing
crime rates associated with gangs.1 Further concern has extended to the prevalence of
gang membership within people aged 10 to 19 years. In the case of gang violence, the
two MINDSPACE factors of messengers and norms can be used to change behavior.
Specifically for messengers, people are strongly influenced by the behavior of those
they perceive to be similar to them. Applied to the topic of gangs, if behavior is widely
practiced by peers and therefore becomes a norm, others will hope to be affiliated with
gangs to conform.

An American approach called the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV)

depends on making one gang member’s actions affect all other members. 1 If a member
commits a crime, the whole group bears the consequences. CIRV also involves gang
members in face-to-face forums that draw on wider social norms, by having victims’
relatives, ex-offenders, and members of the local community speak on the impacts of
gang violence. Related to the messenger effect, such messages are most effective when
relayed by figures the gang members respect.

Ceasefire, a program first launched in Boston in 1996, was based on the CIRV
model.1 At its onset, the US National Institute of Justice found that the intervention
reduced the average number of monthly youth homicides by 63%. Another evaluation
of a similar program found that shootings and killings dropped by 41% and 73% in
Chicago and Baltimore respectively, and that declines between 17% to 35% were
attributable to Ceasefire alone. In Cincinnati, gang-related homicides fell by 50% in the
first nine months of program implementation. Thus, the improvements in gang
affiliation and behavior seem to endure across time, such that once the social norm
is embedded - with the help of an influential messenger - it becomes self-sustaining.
Sustainability: Increasing recycling

Recycling rates have been found to be markedly lower in the UK compared to other
countries in Western Europe, so the UK government felt the need, in 2007, to improve
recycling policies and habits.1 For this particular intervention, the two MINDSPACE
factors of incentives and loss aversion have been used. Deposit schemes have been
used in many countries to encourage people to return empty packages and have been
linked to reductions in littering. The basic principle is for customers to pay an additional
fee when purchasing bottles or associated packaging, which acts as a deposit that is
returned when the empty packaging is brought back. To this end, deposit schemes are
an example of loss aversion as the desire to ‘not lose’ the extra fee incentivizes people
to return their packaging. In a 2010 survey, 82% of UK residents said that they would
support a deposit scheme of five pence per drink container.

As for incentive schemes, there have been examples in the UK that have improved
recycling rates.1 IrnBru, a carbonated soft drink, has been made available in refundable
glass bottles. Consumers can return empty bottles to the retailer in exchange for either
cash refunds or a credit voucher. In 2010, the deposit value was 30 pence, and an
impressive 70% of bottles were returned, cleaned, and reused. In 2008, Environment
Resources Management Limited found that deposit schemes increased return rates in
the countries that used them, often to rates past 85%, and that they could also contribute
to reductions in littering. Thus, designing policy around incentives and loss aversion
has received support from the public and effectively increased recycling.

Related TDL Content

Why we need more than just a nudge
 Nudging , the practice of influencing behavior to provoke a desired outcome, has been
closely associated with the MINDSPACE framework. Take a look at this perspective
article by Andrew Lewis on why nudging may not always be appropriate or sufficient,
supported by COVID-19 examples.

Sources
1. Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Vlaev, I.
(2010). MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy. Institute for
Government. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files
/publications/MINDSPACE.pdf
2. Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R., & Vlaev, I.
(2011). Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 33(1), 264-277.
3. Hallsworth, M., Egan, M., Rutter, J., & McCrae, J. (2018). Behavioural
Government: Using behavioural science to improve how governments make
decisions. The Behavioural Insights
Team. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/public
ations/BIT%20Behavioural%20Government%20Report.pdf
4. The Behavioural Insights Team. (n.d.). About us. The Behavioural Insights
Team. https://www.bi.team/about-us/
5. Mols, F., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., & Staffens, N. K. (2015). Why a nudge is not
enough: A social identity critique of governance by stealth. European Journal of
Political Research, 54(1), 81-98.
6. Sunstein, C. & Thaler, R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism is not an
oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review, 70(4), 1159-1202.
7. Jones, R., Pykett, J., & Whitehead, M. (2010). Governing temptation: Changing
behaviour in an age of libertarian paternalism. Progress in Human Geography,
35(4), 483-501.
8. Rebonato, R. (2012). Taking liberties: A critical examination of libertarian
paternalism. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
9. White, M. (2013). The manipulation of choice: Ethics and libertarian
paternalism. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

What is COM-B?
The COM-B model is a behavior change framework that proposes three
necessary components for any behavior (B) to occur. Through assessing
capability (C), opportunity (O), and motivation (M), leaders, policymakers,
and behavioral scientists can understand why a specific behavior occurs and
how to create targeted interventions that lead to effective change.

The Basic Idea

The COM-B model for behavior change cites capability (C), opportunity (O), and
motivation (M) as three key factors capable of changing behavior
(B). Capability refers to an individual’s psychological and physical ability to
participate in an activity. Opportunity refers to external factors that make a behavior
possible. Lastly, motivation refers to the conscious and unconscious cognitive
processes that direct and inspire change. 5

Let’s look into each of these factors in a little bit more detail:

1. Capability
Capability, in the context of COM-B, refers to whether we have the knowledge,
skills, and abilities to engage in a behavior. This comprises psychological
capability, including mental states, knowledge, and skills, as well as physical
capability. For example, to make an individual feel capable of performing a
behavior or achieving an outcome, implementing a training session to help
support learning may boost feelings of capability.
 2. Opportunity
Opportunity, in the context of COM-B, refers to external factors that make the
execution of a behavior possible. Physical opportunity, opportunities provided
by the environment, and social opportunity are all valid components. For
example, to create the opportunity to begin performing a behavior like new
dietary patterns, free nutrition classes might help.
3. Motivation
Motivation, in the context of COM-B, refers to the internal processes that
influence decision-making and behavior. According to the model, two main
components are reflective motivation (the reflective process involved in
making plans) and automatic motivation (automatic processes such as impulses
and inhibition). For example, to improve motivation, it may be helpful to turn a
desired behavior from something one needs to do to something one wants to do,
encouraging reflection on the benefits of performing that behavior.

An individual’s behavior will change if the above potential levers of change are
successfully implemented. This model recognizes that behavior is influenced by many
factors and that behavior change is induced by modifying at least one of these
components.5 The COM-B model is particularly important when considering
intervention methods, as interveners need to ensure the sustainability of learned
behavior. To assist with its application, the COM-B is also often used in conjunction
with the Behavior Change Wheel, which identifies categories of intervention that can
be used to encourage behaviors in a target population.
“
Behaviour change interventions are fundamental to the effective practice of
clinical medicine and public health, as indeed they are to many pressing issues
facing society."

Susan Michie, Maartje van Stralen, & Robert West, inventors of the COM-B
Model5
What is a Framework?
Behavior change frameworks are the bedrock of applied behavioral science. Designed
by behavioral scientists for policymakers and industry leaders, these summaries of
cutting-edge decision-making insights are essential for applying research in the public
and private spheres. Frameworks distill strategies for influencing human decisions into
simple, portable mnemonic devices or acronyms. This makes it possible for complex,
theoretical insights about how people think and act to make their way into the practices
of organizations across every industry and physical environment. To understand more
about how these frameworks work in practice, check out our case studies .

There are hundreds of frameworks out there, but COM-B tends to be used widely for a
few reasons: a large body of literature shows that it works; it’s quite broad and therefore
applies to many different contexts and industries; it links to a wider toolkit, called the
Behavior Change Wheel, which essentially allows you to start with COM-B and reach
very concrete and evidence-based intervention designs.

Key Terms
Behavior change interventions: Coordinated sets of activities designed to change
specified behavior patterns. The patterns may be measured with respect to the incidence
of behaviors in specified populations; for example, a behavior change intervention
might target a particular high-smoking population to try to decrease daily cigarette
intake.

Behavior Change Wheel (BCW): A framework designed to aid intervention designers

in moving from a behavioral analysis of a problem to an evidence-based intervention
method. This framework allows designers to identify intervention functions and policy
categories that can bring about change.

Intervention functions: The broad categories of strategies used to bring about behavior
change, as identified in the Behavior Change Wheel. These functions include education,
persuasion, incentivization, coercion, training, restriction, environmental restructuring,
and modeling. Each function targets different aspects of capability, opportunity, and
motivation to effectively influence behavior.

Reflective motivation: The conscious processes that influence behavior, including

planning, decision-making, and evaluating the consequences of actions. In the COM-B
model, reflective motivation plays a critical role in guiding deliberate behaviors, as
individuals weigh the pros and cons before taking action.

Automatic motivation: The unconscious processes that drive behavior, such as habits,
impulses, and emotional responses. This aspect of motivation operates without
deliberate thought and often influences behaviors that are habitual or driven by
immediate emotional responses.

Physical opportunity: The environmental factors that make a behavior possible. This
includes the physical presence of resources, tools, or spaces needed to perform a
behavior. For example, access to a gym or availability of healthy food options can create
the physical opportunity for someone to engage in regular exercise or healthy eating.

Social opportunity: The influence of one’s social network, cultural norms, and
interpersonal relationships on behavior. It includes the support, encouragement, or
pressure from others that can either facilitate or hinder the adoption of a particular
behavior.

History
The COM-B Model was developed by Susan Michie, Maartje van Stralen, and Robert
West in 2011 as part of their work to create a more comprehensive framework for
understanding and influencing behavior change. 5 At the time, there were numerous
behavior change models available, but many were either too narrow in scope or too
complex to be practically applied in diverse settings. Recognizing the need for a model
that could be both broad and flexible, Michie and her colleagues sought to address these
limitations by synthesizing insights from existing frameworks into a more cohesive and
usable tool.

The development of the COM-B model was driven by the team's involvement in public
health research, where they encountered the challenges of designing effective
interventions across varied contexts, from smoking cessation to physical activity
promotion. The model was designed to be simple enough to be applied in everyday
practice, while also being grounded in psychological theory to ensure its scientific rigor.

COM-B is part of the broader Behavior Change Wheel (BCW), which Michie, van
Stralen, and West developed in 2014. 4 The BCW was created in response to the
recognition that simply understanding the factors influencing behavior—capability,
opportunity, and motivation—was not enough; there was also a need for a systematic
method to design interventions that could target these factors effectively. The Behavior
Change Wheel integrates the COM-B model with a comprehensive taxonomy of
intervention functions and policy categories, providing a structured approach to
developing behavior change interventions.

Over the years, the COM-B model has been applied in numerous studies and
interventions, from enhancing individual behaviors in clinical settings to even
improving public health incomes.
People
Susan Michie
A British psychologist and professor of health psychology at University College
London. She, along with her colleagues, created the COM-B framework for behavior
change. Michie is a member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on
Behavioural Science (SPO-B): 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). She was also a
recent guest on The Decision Corner podcast , where we discussed the way that
behavioral science will shape the world as we emerge from COVID-19.
Maartje van Stralen
A Dutch behavioral scientist and Associate Professor of Health Psychology at VU
University Amsterdam. She co-developed the COM-B framework alongside Susan
Michie and Robert West. Her research focuses on the intersection of behavior change
and public health, with a particular emphasis on promoting healthy lifestyles and
preventing chronic diseases. Van Stralen’s contributions to the COM-B model have
been instrumental in its application to various health interventions, particularly those
aimed at encouraging physical activity and healthy eating behaviors.
Robert West
A British psychologist and Emeritus Professor of Health Psychology at University
College London. He is one of the co-creators of the COM-B model, working closely
with Susan Michie and Maartje van Stralen to develop this influential framework.
West’s research spans a broad range of topics within health psychology, with a
particular focus on addiction, smoking cessation, and behavior change. His work on the
COM-B model has helped to establish it as a foundational tool in the design of behavior
change interventions across multiple domains, including public health and clinical
practice.
FAQ
What’s the best behavior change framework?
It depends on what kind of behavior change you’re trying to achieve. That being said,
many people consider COM-B and the Behavior Change Wheel (a broader toolkit for
behavior change that revolves around COM-B) to be a fairly good starting point. These
tools are intentionally designed to start broad and cover a lot of ground. As you explore
the elements of COM-B in the context of your behavior change goals, you might find
that you need a much more specific framework and then switch to that one. For
example, if you’re trying to build an exercise app and identify “Automatic Motivation”
to mitigate negative feelings toward running as the crux of your challenge, you might
want to switch over to a behavior change framework that focuses on building strong
habit loops.

What are some of the practical pitfalls when applying

COM-B and other behavior change frameworks?
COM-B tends to be a good starting point for many behavior change challenges—but
it’s often best used as a starting point. One pitfall that we see quite often is that people
stick to COM-B for every single context, from start to finish. While COM-B is quite
thorough, it often leads us to problems that require other tools as a solution. For
example, while COM-B covers a lot of ground, it’s probably not the best tool for a
problem that’s centered around social proof.

How can I adapt frameworks like COM-B for different

cultural contexts?
While COM-B is based on a wide body of research spanning the globe, there is no
guarantee that it is the best tool for a specific audience. That’s why, as with any research
tool, you should be using it to develop hypotheses that you test empirically in the exact
context you’re studying. COM-B itself can be treated this way, but one thing to watch
out for is the use of the rest of the Behavior Change Wheel and the interventions it
suggests—those can be helpful as idea generators, but limiting yourself to interventions
it spits out (which might be based on research focused on a very different group of
people from the one you’re approaching) could be counterproductive.

How can COM-B be used in case management?

COM-B can be a game-changer in case management by helping professionals really get
to the heart of what drives their clients’ behaviors. Let’s break this down. Does your
client have the skills or knowledge they need to stick to their care plan? That’s
capability. Then there’s opportunity—making sure they’ve got access to the right
resources and support systems to make those changes happen. Meanwhile, motivation
is all about tapping into what really inspires them to stay on track, whether it’s sticking
with treatment or getting involved in community programs. By using COM-B, case
managers can better connect with their clients and guide them toward lasting, positive
changes.
Consequences
Understanding factors that influence behavior is the key to behavior change. The COM-
B model of behavior change proposes that to engage in a behavior (B), a person must
have the physical and psychological capability (C) and opportunity (O) to exhibit the
behavior, as well as the motivation (M) to demonstrate the behavior at that specific
moment. This tool has since been widely adopted across various sectors, including
healthcare, public policy, and organizational behavior, due to its versatility and
evidence-based foundation.

COM-B and healthcare

In healthcare, the COM-B model has proven to be a valuable tool for designing
interventions that improve patient outcomes and encourage healthy behaviors. By
addressing the three core components—capability, opportunity, and motivation—
healthcare providers can develop more effective strategies for patient adherence to
treatment plans, medication routines, and lifestyle changes. For example, COM-B has
been used to increase vaccination rates, enhance the management of chronic conditions,
and improve patient participation in preventive screenings.10,11 By systematically
identifying and targeting the barriers to behavior change, COM-B enables healthcare
professionals to create interventions that are tailored to the specific needs and
circumstances of their patients, leading to better health outcomes and more sustainable
behavior changes, such as physical exercise and dietary patterns.

COM-B and public policy

COM-B has also been widely applied in the field of public policy, where it helps
policymakers design and implement interventions aimed at changing population-wide
behaviors. Whether it's encouraging recycling, reducing smoking rates, or promoting
physical activity, the COM-B model provides a framework for understanding the
factors that influence behavior at a societal level. By addressing capability,
policymakers can ensure that citizens have the knowledge and skills necessary to
engage in desired behaviors. By improving opportunities, such as by providing access
to public services or creating supportive environments, they can make it easier for
people to act. Finally, by fostering motivation through public awareness campaigns or
incentives, policymakers can inspire citizens to adopt and maintain beneficial
behaviors. The versatility of COM-B in public policy has led to its adoption in
numerous government initiatives aimed at improving public health, safety, and well-
being.

COM-B and organizational behavior

In organizational behavior, the COM-B model is increasingly used to drive change
within companies and institutions. Organizations often face challenges in encouraging
employees to adopt new processes, embrace cultural shifts, or engage in continuous
learning. By applying the COM-B framework, organizational leaders can identify the
barriers to change and design targeted interventions that address these obstacles. For
instance, enhancing capability might involve providing training programs to develop
the necessary skills for new tasks. Improving opportunity could mean restructuring
workflows or providing the tools and resources needed to support change. Lastly,
fostering motivation might involve aligning organizational goals with personal values
or creating incentive programs that reward desired behaviors. Through the application
of COM-B, organizations can create environments that support change, leading to
improved performance, employee satisfaction, and overall organizational effectiveness.
Controversies
In her 2016 paper, Jane Ogden, a Professor of Health Psychology at the University of
Surrey, critiques the use of the COM-B model and the Behavior Change Wheel, arguing
that these frameworks might oversimplify the complexity of human behavior. 6 To
understand her perspective, it's essential to revisit the origins of these tools. Back in
2008, researchers sought to identify which techniques were most effective in driving
behavioral change. Their efforts culminated in the creation of the Behavior Change
Technique Taxonomy, a resource designed to evaluate the success of interventions and
ensure that the most effective strategies were implemented. However, Ogden contends
that in developing this taxonomy, the natural variability in human behavior and
interactions was largely overlooked. Meanwhile, proponents of the taxonomy argue that
standardizing behavior change methods is crucial for maximizing intervention
effectiveness, which they believe should be the primary focus. 6

Ogden, on the other hand, challenges this notion, expressing skepticism about the ability
of standardized protocols to predict outcomes accurately, especially given the inherent
variability in human behavior. She points out that when there's a misalignment between
a person's beliefs and their actions, it creates a disconnect—not only within the
individual but also between the individual and the health professional. Moreover, she
highlights another layer of disconnect between the health professional's beliefs and the
training they receive to deliver these interventions. 6 Ogden argues that by striving to
systematize behavior change science, we risk neglecting the valuable nuances of human
variability, ultimately diminishing the effectiveness of interventions and hindering the
progress of behavior change science. 7

Case Studies
COM-B model and improving hearing-aid use
Despite an abundance of evidence that hearing-aid use can improve the quality of life,
30% of the hearing-impaired community chooses not to wear them. 1 Barker and
colleagues (2016) examined whether the application of the COM-B method could
develop an intervention for this discrepancy in their target population. They interviewed
10 audiologists about their feelings on each component of the COM-B model. The
audiologists reported that they felt that physical capability was not an issue for them,
and both physical and social opportunities were important in determining whether
behavioral planning was likely to occur. They also reported that
the motivation component played an important role in determining the likelihood of
carrying out behavioral planning. Altogether, capability, opportunity, and motivation
were considered to be important drivers in filling hearing-aid fitting appointments.
Barker and colleagues therefore argue that the COM-B model can effectively be used
in audiology intervention development and provide self-management support.

COM-B model and improving antibiotic usage

Antibiotic resistance is a serious threat to global health and is estimated to cause 10
million deaths per year by 2050 if no effective intervention is implemented. 3 Duan and
colleagues (2020) note that antibiotic resistance is caused by inconsistent use of
prescribed antibiotics, often due to poor adherence to physician advice, the sharing of
unused antibiotics, or the use of antibiotics for self-medication purposes. Unfortunately,
the understanding of consumer behavior regarding antibiotic usage is limited. Duan and
colleagues aimed to examine consumer behavior patterns and develop strategies to
improve antibiotic usage in China using the COM-B framework. They identified the
COM-B attributes of antibiotic consumers—what capability, opportunity, and
motivation looked like—by conducting interviews with 30 participants. Duan and
colleagues then developed, tested, and validated a measurement to understand antibiotic
consumer behaviors. This measurement tool will allow the researchers to categorize and
identify hidden behavior patterns of consumers. Duan and colleagues argue that their
tool eases the process of developing and applying targeted interventions. For example,
a home medicine review program may be useful for consumers who have a tendency to
stockpile medicines and self-medicate.3

COM-B model and the COVID-19 pandemic

According to a 2020 review article published by Weston and colleagues, behavioral
science plays a critical role in mitigating the effects of infectious disease outbreaks such
as the COVID-19 pandemic.11 The World Health Organization (WHO) encourages
adaptive behavior change in response to public health emergencies. This sentiment is
echoed by Michie and colleagues (2020) who state that, “Human behavior will
determine how quickly COVID-19 spreads and the mortality. Therefore, behavioral
science must be at the heart of the public health response.” 2 Weston and colleagues note
that the COM-B model has been proposed as a starting point for interventions that
would reduce virus transmission. This idea is further supported by a
2020 paper published in Nature, wherein authors West and colleagues argue that
changing behavior is critical to preventing the transmission of COVID-19.10

As we know, behaviors such as social distancing, isolation, wearing a mask, and

frequent handwashing are all critical to preventing the spread of COVID-19. These
measures have been implemented by governments across the globe, however, according
to West and colleagues, there is an urgent need to create interventions that improve
human adherence.

The authors employed the COM-B model to understand how capability, opportunity,
and motivation affect adherence to COVID-19 guidelines. They also employed the
related behavior change wheel to identify the categories of intervention that should be
included in the behavior change strategy; education, persuasion, incentivization ,
coercion, enablement, training, restriction, environmental restructuring, and modeling.
West and colleagues found that interventions should target behaviors such as isolation
and social distancing measures, specifically. They conclude that behavioral science
models and methods, such as the COM-B, can be used to develop and evaluate such
interventions.10
Related TDL resources
Stages of Change: How to Motivate and Reinforce Desired Behaviors

If you are interested in learning more about changing human behavior, this article
outlines the tool of motivation, as well as how behavior change occurs through a series
of stages.

A Nudge a Day Keeps the Doctor Away

If you are interested in reading more about how behavioral science is applied in the
medical world, this article outlines how automaticity in our actions may be responsible
for sub-optimal health behaviors.

Sources
1. Barker, F., Atkins, L., & De Lusignan, S. (2016). Applying the COM-B
behaviour model and behaviour change wheel to develop an intervention to
improve hearing-aid use in adult auditory rehabilitation. International Journal of
Audiology, 55(sup3), S90-
S98. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2015.1120894
2. Behavioural science must be at the heart of the public health response to
COVID-19. (2020, February 28). The
BMJ. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/02/28/behavioural-science-must-be-
at-the-heart-of-the-public-health-response-to-covid-19/
3. Duan, Z., Liu, C., Han, M., Wang, D., Zhang, X., & Liu, C. (2020).
Understanding consumer behavior patterns in antibiotic usage for upper
respiratory tract infections: A study protocol based on the COM-B
framework. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 17(5), 978-
985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.07.033
4. Michie, S., Atkins, L., & West, R. (2014). The behaviour change wheel: A
guide to designing interventions.
5. Michie, S., Van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change
wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change
interventions. Implementation Science, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-
5908-6-42
 6. Ogden, J. (2016). Celebrating variability and a call to limit systematisation: The
example of the behaviour change technique taxonomy and the behaviour change
wheel. Health Psychology Review, 10(3), 245-
250. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2016.1190291
7. Peters, G. Y., & Kok, G. (2016). All models are wrong, but some are useful: A
comment on Ogden (2016). Health Psychology Review, 10(3), 265-
268. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2016.1190658
8. Social Change UK. (n.d.). A guide on the COM-B Model of
Behaviour. https://social-change.co.uk/files/02.09.19_COM-
B_and_changing_behaviour_.pdf
9. West, R., & Michie, S. (2020, April 9). A brief introduction to the COM-B
Model of behaviour and the PRIME Theory of
motivation. https://www.qeios.com/read/WW04E6.2
10. West, R., Michie, S., Rubin, G. J., & Amlôt, R. (2020). Applying principles of
behaviour change to reduce SARS-Cov-2 transmission. Nature Human
Behaviour, 4(5), 451-459. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0887-9
11. Weston, D., Ip, A., & Amlôt, R. (2020). Examining the application of behaviour
change theories in the context of infectious disease outbreaks and emergency
response: A review of reviews. BMC Public
Health,20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09519-2

From Theory to Frameworks: Putting

Behavioral Science to Work

Preeti Kotamarthi

2 min read

Sep 28, 2021

In the very first class of my Masters in Behavioral Science, our professor wrote in
capital letters on the whiteboard: “CONTEXT MATTERS.” I still have my notes from
the class where I doodled around these two words, not really understanding their
gravity or the reasoning behind why this was being emphasized.
Cut to now. A few weeks ago, the entire world of behavioral science was shaken
when a blog made startling revelations about the validity of some high-profile
research in behavioral science.1 But that’s not even the first time the field has been
called out. The replication crisis has bogged us down for years. 2 Yet, somehow, when
I read these articles, my main response is not alarm, but rather the conviction that my
doodle drawing of “Context Matters” from so many years ago really was correct.

The reason I say that is because being an applied behavioral scientist basically means
all the research we do starts from scratch, irrespective of replicability or conclusive
laboratory results. Each analysis is in a completely new context, and possibly with a
completely different audience.

How then do we make use of all this academic literature? What’s the point of
academic literature if it fails in a different context? How do we make sense of what
works and what doesn’t?

Frameworks to the rescue

After a few years of asking myself these questions, I have come to the conclusion that
consultants and MBAs were not completely off the mark with their dependence on
frameworks. A framework distills the research on a given topic into its core insights
and helps connect various components in a meaningful way, to help people
understand how complex behavioral mechanisms work in practice. Some prominent
frameworks include the MINDSPACE framework and the COM-B model.

But how do we go about creating such a framework? Let’s take an example of a

framework and try to understand how we go about creating it.

Last year, I wrote a piece for The Decision Lab on why we cannot say no to
promotional offers. It was a basic framework synthesizing various theories for how
promotions or discounts are perceived by consumers.

In this area, there are two dominant hypotheses: the Lucky Shopper hypothesis and
the Smart Shopper hypothesis. According to the former, consumers enjoy discounts
the most when they come about as a result of external factors; by contrast, the latter
states that consumers appreciate discounts more when they deliberately found them
under their own power. It’s a question of luck versus skill.

Now, if you look into the literature, you’ll find papers that state that the Lucky
Shopper hypothesis cannot be proven; you’ll also find others that say it is the most
valid explanation for why people love discounts. The same is true for the Smart
Shopper hypothesis. But when you dig deeper into these papers, you’ll also realize
that none of these are conclusive in either direction, because they worked with small
sample sizes, were run as surveys instead of randomized controlled trials, and
basically cannot be taken at face value.

That said, that doesn’t mean all this research is useless. These papers still tell us that
in certain circumstances, certain factors impact decisions in a certain way. That is still
important information—it just needs to be contextualized within the wider body of
research. That’s where frameworks come in.

This framework doesn’t center either hypothesis, but instead creates a model for
weighing various factors to predict how people might perceive discounts in certain
situations.

Why make frameworks?

1. They provide an exhaustive list of influences. What happens if we don’t go
through this process? Let’s take something as simple as loss aversion . Loss
aversion is a disputed topic. Are people averse to loss? Maybe they are. Maybe
they are not. But, if we go by whichever paper we’ve most recently read and
categorically ignore the potential influence of loss aversion on a decision, we
risk missing a valuable part of the picture.

Maybe in our context, because of how our brand is seen by customers

(premium brand) or because of the category we operate in (for example,
insurance or financial services), people are really averse to loss. A framework
that incorporates any and all biases that may or may not come into play, and
then allows practitioners to determine to what degree it is relevant, will ensure
that we don’t fail to detect an important influence on people’s behavior.
2. They provide a more fundamental understanding. As an applied behavioral
scientist, your solution cannot be a single, one-line statement telling the team
what nudge to apply. It has to be a nuanced understanding of human behavior
that helps all stakeholders comprehend the behavior at a fundamental level. A
framework helps you do that. It just helps everyone understand all factors that
can influence a behavior.
3. They help us solve a variety of problems. When you create a framework, you
help open up the problem space. If anything can influence behavior, you should
be solving for as many things as possible. A framework approach helps the
 entire team think through problems keeping in mind these multiple influences
and thinking of ways of overcoming them.
So, how does one create a solid framework?
1. Assemble an exhaustive list of inputs. This is where the massive academic
literature comes in handy. Comb through literature and find all possible
publications on the subject. Some may not be proving anything conclusively.
Some may support the exact opposite conclusion of what you intend. The only
thing that matters is, you collect as much information as possible on everything
that impacts the behavior you are trying to study.

For instance, in order to create this framework on discounts, search for all
possible research around promotions, offers, transactional utility, and so on.
Sometimes, even adjacent literature, like literature on casinos, might give you
clues. Make a note of all things that impact the behavior. Conclusive,
inconclusive, positive, negative, does not matter.
2. Connect the dots in logical order. Armed with the list of inputs, think of
logical ways in which you can connect them. Some will merge together, some
will stay separate entities. Skill and luck are opposite ends of the locus of
control, so they come together. A few factors come together and become
“controllability.” And so on.
3. Now run the framework in different contexts. Knowing that we created this
framework as an exhaustive list, it is important to run the framework in
different contexts and come up with case studies on when a factor works and
when it doesn’t.

For instance, based on your research, you can now you can say that the Smart
Shopper hypothesis seems to be relevant when purchasing products like
electronics, because consumers put in the research before deciding what exactly
to buy. When they find themselves a discount through extensive research, they
feel better about themselves. However, for the same people, the Lucky Shopper
hypothesis might still apply in some cases, like when given a scratch card to get
a week’s worth of groceries for free. These shoppers may find themselves
overjoyed, because they got “lucky.”

The important thing is—there are no limits. Everything can be applied to

everyone, theoretically. But, how can that be feasible?
4. That’s why you experiment! Now you know all factors that can impact how
people feel about discounts. But how do you know exactly which of these is at
work in your particular context? You experiment. The framework merely laid
down the guiding principles to help you come up with all possible experiment
 ideas. Create an exhaustive list of influences, design experiments around them,
weed out ideas that seem unreasonable or intuitively wrong, and finally, decide
what to experiment on. Only at the end of the experiment, you conclusively
know what is working in your context.

Why now?
In the recent debates about the validity of behavioral science research, several
troublesome factors have come up. Are these studies valid outside university labs?
Are these studies valid for audiences outside of the WEIRD (Western, Educated,
Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) world? Are these studies valid
under all contexts? Are these studies going to be true a few years from now? Are
these studies replicable?

In the midst of all this intense debate, there are two learnings for all behavioral
science practitioners:

1. Overreliance on one study to prove all these above factors is misguided. No

study is able to conclusively prove everything.
2. Focusing on proving the existence of one effect on one small audience may or
may not result in research that stands the test of time.

Instead, the whole mental model around understanding human behavior is gradually
shifting from focusing on one influence to a more nuanced understanding.
Frameworks reflect this changing paradigm, transforming behavioral research from a
black-and-white understanding of human behavior to a more holistic model. As an
applied behavioral scientist, I have been witness to this transformation and can vouch
for the increased practicality of behavioral science thanks to this shift towards
frameworks.

Concluding remarks
Do frameworks always work? Maybe not. But, given what we know about our
subject, we also know that drawing conclusions based on academic research alone is
also not reliable.

Like my first day in behavioral science taught me, context matters. Frameworks help
test academic research in different contexts more rigorously. They give us a means of
respecting academic literature and at the same time, adapting it for practical use. If
none of the factors in your framework end up working for you, you know there’s a
gap in the literature. But if even one factor works, you know the framework helped
you rule out so much more. Just for that, it’s worth the effort.