More and more, the objective of a designed interaction is to change the behaviour of its users. Knowledge of psychological theory is essential in achieving desired results, but often not sufficiently available to designers. At CHI Sparks 2014, Sander Hermsen, Reint Jan Renes, & Jeana Frost presented a model that will evolve into a tool that will help designers in creating evidence-based interventions for behavioural change.

1. PERSUASIVE BY DESIGN:A MODEL AND TOOLKIT
FOR DESIGNING EVIDENCE-BASED INTERVENTIONS
Sander Hermsen Reint Jan Renes Jeana Frost
Hogeschool Utrecht Hogeschool Utrecht Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Touchpoints!
Persuasief ontwerpen
voor duurzaam en gezond gedrag

2. Touchpoints
■ Evidence-based design
■ use of reliable, valid knowledge to inform
behavior change concepts
■ gaining importance in past decade
■ health, sustainability
2

3. ■ Evidence-based design
■ use of reliable, valid knowledge to inform
behavior change concepts
■ gaining importance in past decade
■ health, sustainability
■ Important source of knowledge:
behavioral sciences
■ problem: impenetrable field
3

4. Our proposed model
• Evidence-based
• More possibilities for informing designs
• Easy to use
6

5. Our proposed model
• Evidence-based
• More possibilities for informing designs
• Easy to use
• Uses for model:
- Case analysis for target group research
- Concept Analysis for discovering strenghts and weaknesses in concepts
- Decisional Accountability 7

6. Method
• literature search
• refining draft versions through co-design sessions
• first tool: workshop
• interviews
• observations
• questionnaire
8

7. Results from literature
and co-design sessions
1) Model must distinguish between two modes of
behavior: automatic (habits, impulses) and controlled
3) Controlled behavior is best explained by insights
from control theory
3) Many processes threaten behavior change
5) We’re social animals
9

8. Results from literature
1. Dual process theory
• Automatic behavior
• Controlled behavior
! Blue layer
10
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

9. 2. Controlled behavior is
best explained by
insights from
control theory
- self-regulatory cycle
! Blue layer
Results from literature
11
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

10. 3. Many processes threaten
behavior change
! Red layer
■ Resistance
■ Biases, white lies
■ Threats to motivation
(e.g. frustration)
■ Cognitive dissonance
reduction strategies
■ Etcetera...
12
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
Results from literature

11. 4. We’re social animals
! Green layer
■ Social comparison
■ Social norms
■ Peer pressure
■ Social commitment
■ Cooperation and shared goals
■ Social inhibition, social validation
13
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
Results from literature

12. Black layer
■ Interventions
in controlled
behavior
■ norm communication,
feedback, action planning,
involving social factors
14
+!
feasible steps
Action planning
!
!
!
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
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
Changed
Behavior
Original
Behavior
No change in
Behavior
Goal achieved:

13. Purple layer
■ Interventions aimed at automatic behavior
■ removing cues, placing alternative cues,
disrupting cue-behavior-link
15
i
Intervening in
automatic
behavior
placing
alternative
cue
Reporting
Performance
Feedback
i
disrupting
cue –
behavior link
i
removing
cue
CUE
Changed
Behavior
Original
Behavior
No change in
Behavior
Goal achieved:

14. 16
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
+!
feasible steps
Action planning
!
!
!
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
tekst
http://www.touchpoints-hu.nl/

15. First tool derived from model:
Sets of questions to test concepts
■ Ten sets
■ 6 sets from blue layer, 2 from red layer, 2 from green layer
■ Each set has additional questions from black + purple layers
17

16. Testing the model
■ Workshops
■ Anders op Weg, concepts for persuading people to reduce
car use during rush our. 8 participants
■ Enexis, concepts for reducing company CO2 footprint
through behavior change. 12 participants
18

17. Testing the model
■ Workshop consisted of
■ Introduction of the model
■ Introduction of sets of questions derived from the model to
challenge the design concepts
■ Working on the concepts using model and questions
■ Feedback, questionnaires and interviews
19

18. Workshop results:
Questionnaires and interviews
✓ Participants indicated:
■ valuable insights
■ both for current project and for work overall
✓ We observed:
■ richer concepts that were better thought-through and
more sharply defined
■ problems and pitfalls of concepts became clear
20
“Of great value. I am one of the more sceptical people in my
team; this enables us to think more clearly about our goals and
the means that we need to develop to achieve them!”

19. Workshop results:
Questionnaires and interviews
- Participants indicated:
■ the complexity of the model makes it hard to use
without guidance
- We observed:
■ participant were most likely to use the best explained
examples and principles
■ the model is impossible to use without introduction
21
“I would like to see a simpler version.”

20. Results
✓ Evidence-based model
✓ More possibilities for informing designs
! Easy to use
22

21. Results
✓ Evidence-based model
✓ More possibilities for informing designs
! Easy to use
‣Next phase
■prototyping and testing tools based upon model
■especially aiming at a ‘stand alone’-tool
■ graphic novel techniques
■ interactive infographic techniques
23

22. Thank you
■ Your questions?
■ more information:
sander.hermsen@hu.nl @sanderhermsen
■ Download model pdf and questions at
http://www.touchpoints-hu.nl/
24