Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Using the PERSUASIVE BY DESIGN-Model to inform the design of complex behaviour change interventions: two case studies

1,687 views

Published on

Recently, there has been an increase in interest for the integration of insights from the behavioural sciences into the design process. The Persuasive by Design model aims to provide an evidence-based framework by which designers gain access to relevant theoretical insights from the behavioural sciences. This paper examines the use of the model in two case studies that dealt with complex behavioural change situations. In both studies, the model proved to be a valuable aid in determining target behaviours and operationalizing intervention concepts, especially in the early stages of the design process. Some shortcomings of the model also transpired. The model was seen as too complex, and its psychological frame does not prevent designers to overlook possible systemic moderators of behaviour. Implications for further development of tools that give access to model insights are discussed.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

Using the PERSUASIVE BY DESIGN-Model to inform the design of complex behaviour change interventions: two case studies

  1. 1. Using the Persuasive by Design–Model to inform the design of complex behaviour change interventions: two case studies ! Sander Hermsen Sander Mulder Reint Jan Renes Remko van der Lugt #EAD11 ! Université Paris René Decartes April 2015
  2. 2. Touchpoints Two year project Academia and practice ! Aim: making recent insights from the behavioural sciences accessible and usable for the creative industries ! in sync with designerly methods / without enforcing an overly descriptive design method !
  3. 3. This talk Persuasive by Design – model: why? Persuasive by Design – model: what? ! Case I: Safety motivation - brief and designs - use of the model in design process Case II: Permit application - brief and designs - use of the model in design process ! Lessons learned Implications for further work New Behavio Goal achie Comparing goal with behaviour fitting ability, motivation, opportunity? rying out new behaviour Goal abandoned: no no discrepancy perceived discrepancy yes No behaviour change wanting and being able to seeing and realising habits and impulses Habitual or impulsive behaviour repeat until habit internal and external influences on self-regulatory cycle social influences, social support, commitment, peer pressure, cooperation, social comparison, filters and biases, lack of relevant information, conflicting behaviour, conflicting norms, excuses and white lies, frustration Hermsen, S., Renes, R. J., & Frost, J. (2014). Persuasive by Design: a model and toolkit for designing evidence-based interventions. p. 74-77. The Hague, NL: The Hague University of Applied Sciences Hermsen, S., Mulder, S., Renes, R.J., & Van der Lugt, R. (2015). Using the Persuasive by Design-Model to inform the design of complex Paris 2015.
  4. 4. Why a model? Avoid cherry picking and misappropriation of theories ! Offer a structured approach to inform designs with theory ! Open up closed siloes Attitude Subjective Norm Perceived Control Intention Behavior
  5. 5. PbD-model Synthesis of meta-analyses of succesful behaviour change interventions ! Four basic principles: 1. Automatic vs Reflective 2. Self-regulatory cycle CUE Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes
  6. 6. PbD-model Four basic principles: 1. Automatic vs Reflective 2. Self-regulatory cycle ! 3. Many influences, e.g. ■ Resistance ■ Biases, white lies ■ Frustration ■ Cognitive dissonance reduction Competing / Conflicting Goals Resistance Reactance and scepsis Cognitive dissonance reduction, competing norms Frustration, motivation declineCompeting / conflicting behaviours, habits Biases, White lies Lack of relevant information Changed Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes
  7. 7. PbD-model Four basic principles: 1. Automatic vs Reflective 2. Self-regulatory cycle 3. Many influences 4. Inherently social ■ Social comparison ■ Social norms ■ Peer pressure ■ Social commitment ■ Cooperation and shared goals ■ Social inhibition, social validation Social Norms Peer Pressure, SocialValidation Social Commitment Cooperation, shared goals Social Comparison Social Inhibition CUE Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes
  8. 8. 8 REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR REFLEXIVE BEHAVIOR boundary conditions i Communicator interventions aimed at explicit, controlled behaviour threats to self regulatory cycle social influences on self regulatory cycle steps in the self regulatory cycle (model based, reflective behaviour) i Communicator interventions aimed at implicit, automatic behaviour i Intervening in automatic behavior placing alternative cue attractiveness and availability of goal Reporting Performance Feedback i disrupting cue – behavior link i removing cue +i feasible steps Action planning i i i Reporting Performance Feedback Norm / Goal Setting Targets by communicating norms and goals Involving Social Factors Intervening in reflective/controlled behavior Social Norms Peer Pressure, SocialValidation Social Commitment Cooperation, shared goals Social Comparison Social Inhibition Competing / Conflicting Goals Resistance Reactance and scepsis Cognitive dissonance reduction, competing norms Frustration, motivation declineCompeting / conflicting behaviours, habits Biases, White lies Lack of relevant information CUE Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes Persuasive by Design Behaviour Change Model PbD-model Full model: black and purple layers display different intervention possibilities ! Very complex Training Question sets ! Does using this model aid! designers in theory-driven design?
  9. 9. Case 1 Interventions to increase Safety Motivation in gas plant maintenance workers Designer! Mindmeeting, Publab, three Service Design Bureaus ! Commissioner! NAM – Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij ! Brief! Current safety policies at natural gas drilling facilities result in a clutter of safety- related interventions. Design a tool or service that enables plant managers to select those interventions (posters, trainings, etcetera) that ensure the safest possible working environment
  10. 10. Method Literature study Analysis of current interventions Design pressure cooker Building prototypes Piloting and evaluation
  11. 11. Designs Attention: Gate ! Whistleblowing behaviour: plant walks ! Ownership: Safety cards ! Reduce clutter: no other interventions, posters, etc. One illuminated signpost for exceptions
  12. 12. Model use In every phase. ! Information: structuring interviews, analysis of current interventions Ideation: defining target behaviours, structuring ‘drifting’ Build: guarding operationalization Evaluation: devising viable measurement instruments
  13. 13. Model use BUT: Behaviour frame had shortcomings: draws attention away from systemic factors ! Most use in information, ideation ! More expertise in design team than usually the case
  14. 14. Case 2 Fast, simple and consistent procedures for permit applications Designer! Design Innovation Group ! Commissioner! Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment ! Brief! In 2018, a new environment and planning act will be implemented, entailing a decentralisation of responsibilities, and faster, shorter, and more transparent procedures. Redesign the permit application service, so that it reflects the spirit of the new act, and makes it possible for civil servants to behave accordingly.
  15. 15. Method Interviews with civil servants Analysis of new act Co-design workshops Building and testing prototypes Implementation and evaluation
  16. 16. Designs Standardized agenda & procedure Rolemap – who can do what, when? Optimized environment – standing only, no coffee Standardized overview of costs Smart starter application Standardized to do lists Online Track and Trace-module
  17. 17. Model use Fly on the wall Conscience Problem-definition tool Inspiration tool
  18. 18. Model use BUT: Hard to use, especially further on in design process ! Behaviour frame had shortcomings: draws attention away from systemic factors
  19. 19. 19 REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR REFLEXIVE BEHAVIOR boundary conditions i Communicator interventions aimed at explicit, controlled behaviour threats to self regulatory cycle social influences on self regulatory cycle steps in the self regulatory cycle (model based, reflective behaviour) i Communicator interventions aimed at implicit, automatic behaviour i Intervening in automatic behavior placing alternative cue attractiveness and availability of goal Reporting Performance Feedback i disrupting cue – behavior link i removing cue +i feasible steps Action planning i i i Reporting Performance Feedback Norm / Goal Setting Targets by communicating norms and goals Involving Social Factors Intervening in reflective/controlled behavior Social Norms Peer Pressure, SocialValidation Social Commitment Cooperation, shared goals Social Comparison Social Inhibition Competing / Conflicting Goals Resistance Reactance and scepsis Cognitive dissonance reduction, competing norms Frustration, motivation declineCompeting / conflicting behaviours, habits Biases, White lies Lack of relevant information CUE Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes Persuasive by Design Behaviour Change Model Lessons learned Model use offers potential for evidence- based / theory-driven design ! Disctinction between automatic, reflective ! Structured way of dealing with known moderators of behaviour ! Also in evaluation stage
  20. 20. 20 REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR REFLEXIVE BEHAVIOR boundary conditions i Communicator interventions aimed at explicit, controlled behaviour threats to self regulatory cycle social influences on self regulatory cycle steps in the self regulatory cycle (model based, reflective behaviour) i Communicator interventions aimed at implicit, automatic behaviour i Intervening in automatic behavior placing alternative cue attractiveness and availability of goal Reporting Performance Feedback i disrupting cue – behavior link i removing cue +i feasible steps Action planning i i i Reporting Performance Feedback Norm / Goal Setting Targets by communicating norms and goals Involving Social Factors Intervening in reflective/controlled behavior Social Norms Peer Pressure, SocialValidation Social Commitment Cooperation, shared goals Social Comparison Social Inhibition Competing / Conflicting Goals Resistance Reactance and scepsis Cognitive dissonance reduction, competing norms Frustration, motivation declineCompeting / conflicting behaviours, habits Biases, White lies Lack of relevant information CUE Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes Persuasive by Design Behaviour Change Model Lessons learned BUT ! The value of impact depends on expertise ! Value is greater at the start of the design process ! The model is too complex to use by itself ! Behavioural science ‘lens’ has its limits
  21. 21. 21 REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR REFLEXIVE BEHAVIOR boundary conditions i Communicator interventions aimed at explicit, controlled behaviour threats to self regulatory cycle social influences on self regulatory cycle steps in the self regulatory cycle (model based, reflective behaviour) i Communicator interventions aimed at implicit, automatic behaviour i Intervening in automatic behavior placing alternative cue attractiveness and availability of goal Reporting Performance Feedback i disrupting cue – behavior link i removing cue +i feasible steps Action planning i i i Reporting Performance Feedback Norm / Goal Setting Targets by communicating norms and goals Involving Social Factors Intervening in reflective/controlled behavior Social Norms Peer Pressure, SocialValidation Social Commitment Cooperation, shared goals Social Comparison Social Inhibition Competing / Conflicting Goals Resistance Reactance and scepsis Cognitive dissonance reduction, competing norms Frustration, motivation declineCompeting / conflicting behaviours, habits Biases, White lies Lack of relevant information CUE Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes Persuasive by Design Behaviour Change Model Further work A simpler model ! Design tools based on the model, - taking systemic moderators into account - for use in each phase of the design process
  22. 22. New Behaviour Goal achieved: Comparing goal with behaviour fitting ability, motivation, opportunity? Trying out new behaviour Goal abandoned: Target Behaviour no no discrepancy perceived discrepancy yes No behaviour change wanting and being able to doing and repeating seeing and realising knowing and feeling habits and impulses Cue Habitual or impulsive behaviour autom atic behaviour controlled behaviour repeat until habit Knowledge, norms, attitudes, resistance perceived control Persuasive by Design Behaviour Change Model internal and external influences on self-regulatory cycle social influences, social support, commitment, peer pressure, cooperation, social comparison, filters and biases, lack of relevant information, conflicting behaviour, conflicting norms, excuses and white lies, frustration References: Hermsen, S., & Renes, R.J. (2014). Ontwerpen voor Gedragsverandering. Utrecht, NL: Ucreate. Hermsen, S., Renes, R. J., & Frost, J. (2014). Persuasive by Design: a model and toolkit for designing evidence-based interventions. In: Creating the Difference. Proceedings of CHI Sparks 2014, p. 74-77. The Hague, NL: The Hague University of Applied Sciences Hermsen, S., Mulder, S., Renes, R.J., & Van der Lugt, R. (2015). Using the Persuasive by Design-Model to inform the design of complex behaviour change concepts: two case studies. Proceedings, European Academy of Design, 11th Conference, Paris 2015.
  23. 23. New Behaviour Goal achieved: Comparing goal with behaviour fitting ability, motivation, opportunity? Trying out new behaviour Goal abandoned: Target Behaviour no no discrepancy perceived discrepancy yes No behaviour change wanting and being able to doing and repeating seeing and realising knowing and feeling habits and impulses Cue Habitual or impulsive behaviour autom atic behaviour controlled behaviour repeat until habit Knowledge, norms, attitudes, resistance perceived control Persuasive by Design Behaviour Change Model internal and external influences on self-regulatory cycle social influences, social support, commitment, peer pressure, cooperation, social comparison, filters and biases, lack of relevant information, conflicting behaviour, conflicting norms, excuses and white lies, frustration References: Hermsen, S., & Renes, R.J. (2014). Ontwerpen voor Gedragsverandering. Utrecht, NL: Ucreate. Hermsen, S., Renes, R. J., & Frost, J. (2014). Persuasive by Design: a model and toolkit for designing evidence-based interventions. In: Creating the Difference. Proceedings of CHI Sparks 2014, p. 74-77. The Hague, NL: The Hague University of Applied Sciences Hermsen, S., Mulder, S., Renes, R.J., & Van der Lugt, R. (2015). Using the Persuasive by Design-Model to inform the design of complex behaviour change concepts: two case studies. Proceedings, European Academy of Design, 11th Conference, Paris 2015. More info http://www.sander-hermsen.nl/?p=1820 ! @sanderhermsen @TouchpointsHU ! www.ucreate.nl
  24. 24. New Behaviour Goal achieved: Comparing goal with behaviour fitting ability, motivation, opportunity? Trying out new behaviour Goal abandoned: Target Behaviour no no discrepancy perceived discrepancy yes No behaviour change wanting and being able to doing and repeating seeing and realising knowing and feeling habits and impulses Cue Habitual or impulsive behaviour autom atic behaviour controlled behaviour repeat until habit Knowledge, norms, attitudes, resistance perceived control Persuasive by Design Behaviour Change Model internal and external influences on self-regulatory cycle social influences, social support, commitment, peer pressure, cooperation, social comparison, filters and biases, lack of relevant information, conflicting behaviour, conflicting norms, excuses and white lies, frustration References: Hermsen, S., & Renes, R.J. (2014). Ontwerpen voor Gedragsverandering. Utrecht, NL: Ucreate. Hermsen, S., Renes, R. J., & Frost, J. (2014). Persuasive by Design: a model and toolkit for designing evidence-based interventions. In: Creating the Difference. Proceedings of CHI Sparks 2014, p. 74-77. The Hague, NL: The Hague University of Applied Sciences Hermsen, S., Mulder, S., Renes, R.J., & Van der Lugt, R. (2015). Using the Persuasive by Design-Model to inform the design of complex behaviour change concepts: two case studies. Proceedings, European Academy of Design, 11th Conference, Paris 2015. More info http://www.sander-hermsen.nl/?p=1820 ! @sanderhermsen @TouchpointsHU ! www.ucreate.nl Thank you.

×