Behaviour Change & Technology

Exposure is the basic premise that must be satisfied for an intervention to induce behaviour change. Generally, exposure to Internet-interventions is low. Thus, we need to develop exposure theories and strategies that are linked to effectiveness. Rik Crutzen et al. (2011) reviewed strategies that facilitate exposure to Internet-delivered health behavior change interventions among adolescents and young adults (age 12-25), where they examined what strategies that are used to facilitate exposure, on which theories these strategies are based, and what potential effects these strategies have.

Methods and Strategies

It is clear from the article that nine out of 17 studies reviewed utilized either targeted (i.e. specified audience) or tailored (i.e. personal) communication.  Nine interventions utilized support facilities (e.g. discussion boards, peer support or professional support), five utilized interactive content, some utilized use of reminders and incentives, and a few interventions were embedded in a social context (e.g. implemented in school).

All in all, it is clear that we have only begun to utilize the inherent possbilities in this rich medium called the Internet. As seen from the results, only six different strategies were used in the studies that were reviewed. Although a lot of variation can be found within each strategy and many strategies can be combined, we have yet to utilize the medium to its full extent with regard to designing health and behaviour change interventions.

Theory and Empirical Data

It appears that a wide variety of theories were applied to design the interventions. The basis for the selection of strategies was social learning theory, self-regulation theory, social norms, the transtheoretical model, information-motivation-behavioural skills model, and different theories of social support.

As Crutzen et al. (2011) point out, these theories are descriptive in nature where the aim is to describe behaviours or behaviour change. None of these theories are actually prescriptive. That is, inform the intervention designer exactly about how to design the intervention in order to induce behaviour change.

Of course, it is not difficult to imagine and design e.g. exercises, tasks, games, etc. that are based on these theories and that intend on inducing behaviour change, but it is not given that it will work in practice.

Furthermore, none of the interventions applied any specific theories of exposure facilitation or theories of dissemination and implementation which makes it even more difficult to study and improve exposure in future interventions.

Effectiveness of Strategies

It seems that support strategies are rarely used by participants. This effect may reflect that adolescents and young adults are rarely confronted with negative consequences of the target behaviours which Internet-interventions are designed for, resulting in low involvement and low motivation to comply.

Providing interactive content may thus be a great way of enforcing involvement in one’s behaviour change process. The results from the article showed that providing content in a more interactive way resulted in higher exposure.

Asking and answering questions, interactive quizzes and games, listening to audio, watching videos, etc. breaks the monotony of reading and requires a different kind of cognitive processing of content which may result in greater involvement. 

Also, the use of reminders seems to increase exposure. Text messages, email reminders, proactive IVRs (interactive voice response), etc. may increase exposure by “pulling in” users and making interventions more attractive. However, the use of incentives to make people use the intervention may be feasible for studies, but would increase costs extremely in real-life.

Thus, finding new ways of providing incentives is important. It could for instance be to apply gaming principles to make interventions self-rewarding, but it may also be a matter of finding an appropriate business model and commercialize interventions.

Conclusion

The authors of the article concluded that there seems to be a few strategies that can be used to facilitate exposure more successfully. However, they were not able to link specific strategies to effectiveness. So far, I think the Internet is a rich medium which we believe has not been fully utilized in Internet-delivered interventions and that research on Internet-delivered interventions has yet to improve beyond conducting mere studies of program effectiveness. More experimental evidence is needed, more optimization and process research is needed, and exposure/dissemination/implementation research that is linked to effectiveness data.

Reference

Crutzen, R., de Nooijer, J., Brouwer, W., Oenema, A., Brug, J. & de Vries, N. K. (2011). Strategies to factilitate exposure to Internet-delivered health behavior change interventions aimed at adolescents or young adults: A systematic review. Health Education & Behaviour, 38,  49-62.

   Send article as PDF   

There is not one national healthcare system in the world that has the capacity or resources to follow up every nation’s person in need of help and support changing lifestyle behaviours. Thus, eating and physical activity behaviours requires that people take personal responsibility for their health and well-being. However, changing lifestyle behaviours is extremely difficult. There are two major reasons why it is so difficult.

First, approximately 70% of your body weight and size is determined by your genes which your body will attempt to maintain. This is not anything you can do much about. Second, the remaining 30% are largely determined by environmental factors that influence our eating behaviours outside our conscious awareness. The good news is that you can change the evironmental factors to work for us instead of against us. Here I show you 10 practical and scientifically proven ways of changing your environment so that you can eat more healthy without thinking about it.

1. Use tall and narrow (highball) glasses.

People tend to pour and drink a lot more juice, soda, liquors, etc. when using short and wide glasses. When people evaluate the volume of cylindrical shapes such as glasses, they tend to focus on height at the expense of width (i.e. the vertical-horizontal illusion). Consequently, we underestimate how much we think we pour onto our glasses. Short and wide glasses should only be used for drinking water. So, replace your shortest and widest glasses with taller and narrower and put them in front in your cupboard.

2. Use small serving aids.

Research has demonstrated how easily we are fooled by the size of serving aids. Put four spoons full of mashed potatoes on a large plate (e.g. 12 inches) and you will most likely underestimate the amount of food on that plate. Put the same amount of mashed potatoes on a small plate (e.g. 8 inches) and you will most likely overestimate the amount of food on that plate. This is the size-contrast illusion in practice. The same amount of food can seem a lot or little depending on the size of serving aids you use. The principle applies not only to plates, but all sorts of serving aids such as spoons, bowls, forks, etc. So, go back in to your cupboards and find the smallest serving aids you have and make them easily available for use.

3. Turn on the lights while eating.

Candlelit dinners and dimmed lights increases our consumption by increasing comfort and decreasing self-consciousness. The more we enjoy a meal,  the longer the meal lasts. And the more time you spend eating your meal, the more often you end up eating a second portion, an unplanned dessert or having an extra drink. Also, soft or dimmed lights makes us less self-conscious which makes it harder for us to monitor and inhibit our consumption.

4. Turn of music and remove noise.

Listening to music we enjoy increases comfort just like dimmed lights. The same is true for slow and soft music. We stay longer, we feel more comfortable, we become less self-conscious, and we become more likely to eat more. More research is needed on noises and loud and up-tempo music, but it appears this too can lead us to overeat because we hurry to clean our plates and ignore signals of satiety.

5. Always eat at a table with no disturbances.

Very often we find ourselves eating at sports events, in movie theaters, grab a hot dog on the go, etc.  One major problem with eating in such situations where there usually is no table, is that our attention is directed on something else than eating. Disturbances such as watching television, reading a book, talking on the phone, etc. while eating makes us less aware of how much we eat.

6. Always leave leftover food on the table until you are finished eating.

A group of researchers conducted a study in restaurants where some waiters cleaned their customers’ tables during the meal. Other waiters were instructed to let the leftover food stay on the table until their customers’ were completely finished with the meal. The result were that those customers who could see all the leftovers ate less. The results could be explained by the fact that those customers with leftovers on their tables did not have to rely on their memory – they could easily see how much they had eaten.

7. Consider how often you should eat with others.

Eating is very much a shared or social activity with friends and family. Friends and family are good for you, however, eating with others also increases our consumption. The duration of meals are extended and simply observing others can set consumption norms on what is eaten and how much. The effects can be dramatic. Meals eaten with only one other person present increases intake by appr. 30%. Consumption is incremental with increases in the number of people we eat with. Eat with 7 persons around the dining table and it is not unlikely that you will eat twice the amount of food that you would have eaten if you were to eat alone. Consider suggesting social activities with friends and family that do not necessarily involve eating.

8. Buy food in medium or normal sized packages and portions.

Both large- and small-sized packages and portions makes us eat more. Large-sized packages and portions increases consumption with about 20% for meal-related foods and about 30-45% for snacks. The more food we stockpile and have available, the more we eat. We also have a cultural tendency to “clean our plates” although we are far beyond the point of satiety. Ironically, small-sized packages and portions also make us eat more because we tend to think of small sizes as diet food(!). The problem is that the food that often comes in small packages and sizes is exactly the energy dense and unhealthy food we really should eat less of.

9. Organize and re-structure your food.

Cleverly designed research demonstrated how a bowl of assorted M&Ms can increase how many you eat. People who were given a bowl of M&Ms with 10 different colours ate about 40% more than people who were given only 7 different colours. Taste could not explain these findings as all M&Ms tasted exactly the same. The lesson to be learned here is that perceived variety suggests consumption norms. This means that you should try to separate and organize foods on your plate in clearly visible patterns, never buy assorted candy, avoid having more than two kinds of food on your plate at buffets and receptions, etc.

These practical tips mainly help you eating more healthy by eating lesser portions or less food that is bad for you. Try reversing these practical tips to eat more healthy foods. For example, if you want to eat more fruits and vegetables: cut them in small pieces, serve them in a large bowl, put the bowl easily available on the table in your living room and eat it in front of the TV. You can find references to the research mentioned in this post and read more about these practical tips in Brian Wansink’s (2004) great review of environmental factors that influence your food consumption.

Reference

Wansink, B. (2004). Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annual Review of Nutrition, 24, 455-479.

   Send article as PDF   

There are many ways of making people say “Yes”. Yes to buy a book, yes to vote for a political candidate, yes to do things to preserve the climate, and all the other yes’s in the world. According to Goldstein et al. (2009) latest book, there are at least 50 scientifically proven ways to make people say that one word. While some ways of making people say “yes” are well known and widely applied, others are less known. Here we present a few of the less known and perhaps surprising strategies of persuasion:

1.      Sometimes all you have to do is just to ask.

We often underestimate the likelihood that the recipient will comply with our requests (Flynn & Lake, 2008). It is important to recognize this because it can potentially lead to productivity losses and prevent accomplishing your goals. Moreover, holding a correct impression of how many say “Yes!” may not only increase staff motivation, but by applying the simple principle of requesting what you want, you appear open and honest. If openness and honesty does not persuade people into doing whatever you want them to do, at least it does not create much resistance.

2.      More options promote indecisiveness.

Startup and small businesses often offer only few options and products. If successfully managed, the business will grow and attract new customers which open up the possibility for expanding the product portfolio. Most people usually consider having more choices to be a good thing. However, as research shows, and as many businesses often painfully have experienced, this is not always a good business idea. An abundance of choices most often overwhelms customers and leads to indecisiveness (i.e. fewer purchases).

3.      Be the first to throw out the anchor.

During negotiations, the first meetings or first few minutes in a meeting, the parties often dance around the table reluctant to be the first to present their offer. Is this the right strategy for achieving the highest bid? No. Research shows that the one that first puts the bid out on the table achieves superior outcomes (Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001). Why? The first offer “anchors” the negotiation and the parties tend not to move that far away from the anchor. Remember, though, that the first offer should be realistic!

4.      Humor people.

Humor brings people closer together and helps establish relationships (Kurtzberg et al., 2009). Moreover, humor seems to make people put down their guard in negotiations by proposing less extreme offers. In business, the possibility for using humor is very limited and not all people find all jokes, cartoons, and other fun stuff equally humoring. So attempts at making people laugh and come in good mood should be made with caution, however, there is no doubt that interaction with users and business outcomes can become more effective when using humor.

5.      “I don’t mean to sound rude, but…”.

Have you ever found it difficult to say something and tried to get ahead of the situation by saying things like “I trust you will manage this situation, but don’t forget to…”? Well, guess what? Research shows that if you do say such things, you are going to be perceived as someone who doesn’t trust his co-workers or rude (see El-Alayli et al. 2008). In fact, it is better just to say things as they are: “Manage the situation and remember to …” or even better “I trust you will manage this situation.”

What are some of the practical implications of these principles?

First of all, if you want someone to participate in online projects, it can be more cost-effective just to ask people politely if they would like to join than spending a lot of time and effort finding clever ways to persuade them. No one really likes to be persuaded – they like to think it was a self-determined choice. Second, if you want users to start using or buying your online product, be selective about which products you wish to push. It is much easier for users to make a decision to buy or use products from a small sample than the entire range of your products. Third, as long as you are sensitive to what price people are willing to pay, you should not have to be afraid of displaying the price of your products. Most e-commerce sites already do this, however, a few do not. There is nothing that turns a buyer off more than seeing a price tag that is way beyond imagination at checkout. Do not quite know what people want to pay? Well, talk to them and find out what they are willing to pay – sometimes you will be happily surprised. Fourth, try using a bit of humor. Consider e.g. including a non-offensive and appropriate cartoon in your electronic meeting notice. Humor gives people something to talk about, loosens up the atmosphere, and brings people closer together. Fifth, avoid startups like “I don’t mean to sound rude, but…” when chatting with people regardless whether they are close and personal friends or professional relationships. It is very likely that you end up being perceived exactly the way you want to avoid being perceived. The same rule applies online as offline.

References

El-Alayli, A., Myers, C. J., Petersen, T. L., Lystad, A. L. (2008). “I don’t mean to sound arrogant, but…” The effects of using disclaimers on person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 130-143.

Flynn, F. J., & Lake, V. K. B. (2008). If you need help, just ask: Underestimating compliance with direct requests for help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 128-143.

Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 657-669.

Goldstein, N. J., Martin, S. J. & Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive . New York: Free Press.

Kurtzberg, T. R., Naquin, C. E. & Belkin, L. Y. (2009). Humor as a relationship-building tool in online negotiations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20, 377-397.

   Send article as PDF   

In Susan Weinschenk’s (2009) book ”Neuro Web Design” she writes about how websites influence people’s choices unconsciously. Weinschenk shows how influence and persuasion is wired into our brains. This essentially explains why we find attractive people or dangerous car chases persuasive without even being aware of that. Many of the examples used center around the known principles from Cialdini’s (2007) seminal book “Influence”. The best is of course to read both Weinschenk’s and Cialdini’s books, however, if you have little time available, here is a summary of some of the main principles of persuasion:

–>

1. Active participation creates involvement. All social network sites require active participation by its members and they are also the fastest growing websites. I have no idea what the next big thing in technology is going to be, but the safest bet is on technology that is used to communicate and be social. There is nothing people enjoy more than uploading personal photos, sharing videos, expressing their opinions, etc. Someone once said a bit humorously: “Anyone who denies that they enjoy talking about themselves is either lying or lacking in self-understanding”. I would not agree with the statement literally, but I agree that we love to share our selves with others.

2. Low-ball tactics. If you would like people to share some information so you can learn more about the users of your shareware application, you may find it difficult to ask people to submit information online. But, the chances are that if you start by requesting a small donation to keep continuing to make the application, and then request for information, more people will be willing to share information. Being asked to share information when you have declined to donate money may seem like a minor thing to do. However, make sure the initial request seems reasonable and somewhat in proportion to your second request (the target). It would not be a good idea to begin by requesting a donation of €50 and then asking for information.

3. Foot-in-the-door tactic. This is more or less the opposite of low-ball tactics. You begin by making small requests and then increase the scope of your requests. A funny example of the principle in practice was illustrated on a Norwegian television show where an interviewer knocked on people’s doors and simply asked them about how they were living, next he asked for permission to come in and see how they were living, and so it went that he even got to look into people’s bedside drawer a place you would normally not let many people in.

4. Social validation. Learning to know what others think is important. Sometimes we are introduced to products or services we do not know much about. How to decide if this is interesting or good for you? Well, have a look at what others have done or think about it. iTunes’ Genius function is a good example of social proof. Genius recommends music albums and songs based on what music you have on your iPod or iPhone. And you can also see what other people that listen to the same music as you have bought. You can give ratings, write reviews, and read what others think. This can be quite effective, especially when an album or song is just a mouse click away.

5. Reciprocity. Giving someone a preview, demo or sample of your product will make that person feel indebted to you, and no one likes to feel indebted. How do most people resolve this uncomfortable situation? By giving back (or reciprocating). Notice that there is an asymmetrical power relation here too. The person who first performs a service also has the power to decide when he or she wants something in return (“I gave you a demo which ends right here. Now, if you want more, you will have to pay”).

6. Rewards. Rewarding people’s behaviour reinforces that particular behaviour. Simple learning principles like this can be very effective. However, they should be used with caution. For example, rewarding people on a variable-ratio schedule makes the rewards seem scarce and unpredictable, and ask anyone with a gambling or gaming problem and they will tell you that a game with a variable-ratio schedule is more addictive than any other game. Rewards can also switch the motivation for using a technology from intrinsically to extrinsically driven and we know that people often lose interest in what they were doing when this happens. Not sure how this motivational change can affect business? Here is a little thought experiment: When you start paying a child that enjoys making puzzles a small amount of money (e.g. €1) for each puzzle they complete for a short period of time. And then you withdraw the reward (money). If you compare the number of completed puzzles, do you think the child would complete more or fewer puzzles after the inducements compared to before?

We have covered six of the principles here and now. There are more, so stay tuned!

References

Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. HarperCollins: New York.

Weinschenk, S. M. (2009). Neuro web design: What makes them click? New Riders: Berkeley, CA.

See also

www.whatmakesthemclick.blogspot.com

   Send article as PDF   

Language is a great example of dual information processing. One part of language is explicit and controlled and another part is implicit and automatic. Explicit language processes are consciously manipulated by people such as the choice of words, intended meaning, and intonation, while implicit language processes are largely unconscious and receive little direct attention.

To explain or not to explain?
Looking at the details of language can give us much information about people’s attitudes and inclined behaviours, as people occassionally disclose their attitudes or what they are going to do in a manner of the way they communicate but not in the content. For example, if one expects a Black American male “Darnell” who is a short-distance runner, to be quick on his feet, learning that “Darnell came in sixth place…” may instigate an attempt to explain his disappointing position (“… because he was slightly injured). Attempts to explain behaviour most often occur to make sense of things when there is an incongruity in attitudes or behaviour (American runners are known for being among the best short-distance runners in the world).

However, learning that “Darnell stole an old lady’s purse” is unlikely to be explained. Why? Because the information is congruent. And when information is congruent, it often means that our (stereotypic) expectancies have been confirmed. Thus, just by paying attention to the language, we have come to learn that the fictitious person in our example has a mental representation of Black Americans as both athletic and criminal. But merely having mental representations or articulating these representations in language does not necessarily lead to behavioural consequences.

One example that can lead to behavioural consequences is when subordinates communicate to a female leader that they perceive her as “too soft” or “unprofessional”. Consequently, female leaders sometimes shift their leadership style to a more powerful and masculine style. Language changes to become more directive, task-related, and generally contains few tag questions (e.g. “It could have been better, don’t you think?”), hedges (e.g. “I’m not an expert, but…”), and hesitations (e.g. “…uhm…” or “hmm…”). This sometimes happens when female leaders are put under stereotype threat that they are poor leaders. It is important to note that such reactance is not only reserved for female leaders. It can strike males too, and people in all positions and situations.

Promotion or prevention?
Motivated cognition can definitely translate into behaviour as Spiegel, Grant-Pillow, and Higgins (2004) demonstrated. They assigned participants the goal of writing a report about their leisure time. All participants were given the same set of instructions, except that one half were instructed to focus on taking advantage of appropriate times, places, and methods in writing their reports (i.e. a promotion focus), and the second half were instructed to focus on avoiding bad times, places, and methods in writing reports (i.e. a prevention focus). They were also assessed on regulatory focus prior to the task. Both those who were promotion focused and were given the promotion focused instructions and those who were prevention focused and were given prevention focused instructions were about 50% more likely to mail their reports than those where there was no regulatory fit (i.e. promotion focused/prevention focused instructions and prevention focused/promotion focused instructions). Clearly, paying attention to linguistic details and applying language with intent can dramatically change the “persuasiveness” of arguments.

Conclusion
Implicit use of language can be used beyond the few examples given herein to instigate cognitive, emotional, and behavioural change. It represents a low-budget and low-tech approach to both increasing the persuasiveness of arguments and attitudinal and behavioural measurements. But it also gives us access to information about people that may be inaccessible for different reasons (e.g. because language is largely an unconscious process or because people do not want to disclose sensitive information such as their racial preferences).

Key reading:

Petty, R. E., Fazio, R. H. & Brinol, P. (2009). Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures. Psychology Press: New York.

Reference:

Spiegel, S., Grant-Pillow, H. & Higgins, E. T. (2004). How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 39-54.

   Send article as PDF   

Most people adhere to their goals when they are both motivated and able. This is quite impressive in terms of the complex human social life people engage in and the multiple choices people face every day. But how is it that people who are highly motivated and proven to be capable of for instance studying or dieting suddenly may fail to do so? In this article, we discuss how making choices can impair subsequent self-regulation.

Ego depletion
Self-regulation refers to the ability to override or inhibit thoughts, feelings, impulses, and behaviours. It can be viewed as the active part of the self (i.e. agent), as opposed to the self as something known (i.e. identity) or the self as knower (i.e. knowledge). In other words, self-regulation is crucial for the ability to adhere to personal and social goals, but what happens when people’s self-regulatory capacity breaks down?

Vohs and colleagues (2008) conducted a series of experiments where a choice versus no-choice manipulation was followed by a task that required self-regulation. After for instance making active choices on a website, the researchers measured participants’ persistence on a subsequent self-regulatory task. In several of the experiments, participants were also led to believe that practicing or solving the self-regulatory task would help them on an upcoming task so that participants should have been highly motivated to perform well on the self-regulatory task.

The unanimous findings were that making choices leads to lessened tolerance to negative adverse events, lowered persistence, and more procrastination. In other words, making choices depleted the self of mental resources (i.e. ego depletion) that affected subsequent ability to self-regulate or adhere to goals.

Information architecture design
These findings are very interesting from an information architecture (IA) design perspective (see Danaher, McKay & Seeley, 2005). On the one side, we can depend on users to find the right information at the right time and give them complete freedom, including a range of choices and few restrictions (e.g. design digital interventions as matrices). Both users and designers may find it appealing to have a full set of choices and full self-determination although people often report feeling frustrated and overwhelmed with the intense cognitive demands that accompany large amounts of choices (Huffman & Kahn, 1998). And as Vohs et al. and related research shows (e.g. Baumeister, et al. 1998), providing people with many choices is not very helpful or supportive. In addition, from a therapeutic point of perspective, just providing people with choices would be equivalent to holding a laissez-faire attitude as the designer or therapist sort of lets the sequence of events take its own course and takes on a passive role and seeming lack of interest and involvement in the user (Rogers, 1951).

On the other side, we can guide users through a predetermined sequence and reduce or remove irrelevant information (e.g. tunneled IA design). A good example of these principles applied in action is e-commerce where users typically add items in a basket or shopping cart, proceed to checkout, enter shipping address, billing information, and place their order. This may be appropriate and desirable in e-commerce, but when it comes to health and well-being, such IA designs can easily end up objectifying a person’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviours, become too intellectualistic and didactic, and communicate a basic mistrust and lack of respect for the person and belief in his or her abilities to find solutions to their own problems.

Belief in the right for self-determination
The empirical evidence stand in stark contrast to the thought experiments by existentialist philosophers like Camus and early Sartre who portrait the self as an entity that is constructed by acts of free will. Most people strongly believe in the existentialist thought and would have a hard time accepting anything else because a rejection of the existentialist thought would entail that they reject the belief in their basic (human) right for self-determination. People feel it liberating and tend go to great lengths in protecting their freedom. When this freedom or opportunities for making choices is restricted, people become defensive, exhibit patterns of aggression, reactance, and imagine that they control events which they cannot possibly control (e.g. what other people think of them or the roll of dice at casinos). But let us assume that the empirical evidence and existentialist thought are equally true and neither is false, can we then find a solution which does not necessarily imply a compromise?

Is there a solution?
According to Rogers (1951), the counselor’s aim and role or, in our case, an intervention designer’s role is to perceive the phenomenological field as experienced by the person, wholeheartedly accept the person as he or she is which is already experienced critically by the person’s self as it is, and adopt an internal frame of reference. It means to see the world as the person sees it and put aside any preconceived ideas, preconceptions, and perceptions adopted from an external frame of reference (i.e. the counselor or designers perspective). It also means to move in the direction of greater self-responsibility; self-government, self-regulation, and autonomy. The paradox is not the right for self-determination, but it is the choice(s) itself which is the paradox.

Consequently, the potential solution is to help users make the right choices and be supportive of their decision even if it goes against every form of your personal and intellectual sense and understanding of users’ or clients’ problem. This can be an excruciating exercise for the counselor or designer because as human beings we tend to evaluate, compare, diagnose, guide, persuade, argue, teach, etc. quite automatically. Instead, help users decide the overall and important intervention components that strongly underscores that these decisions are fully self-determined rather than providing an excess of alternatives and options concerning nitty-gritty details which users might fancy, but which end up undermining users’ capacity for self-regulation. People want choices, but as Vohs and colleagues’ research shows, people eventually tire of the endless demands and stresses of making these choices. How liberating are these choices of freedom when they actually impair people’s optimal functioning, health, well-being, and social development?

Key reading(s):

Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M. & Tice, D. M. (2008). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 883-898.

References:

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252-1265

Danaher, B. G., McKay, H. G. & Seeley, J. R. (2005). The information architecture of behaviour change websites. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(2), e12.

Huffman, C., & Kahn, B. E. (1998). Variety for sale: Mass customization or mass confusion. Journal of Retailing, 74, 491-513.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy. London: Constable.

   Send article as PDF   

It is very interesting to see how the perception of the information presented in choice items can influence people’s decisions and actions. The arrangement of choice alternatives can pertain to different underlying goals such as for example food enjoyment and concerns about weight which can elicit different psychological and behavioural consequences.

Together or separate?
Fishbach and Zhang (2008) found that it does actually make a difference if conflicting goals are presented alone (e.g. chocolate cake) or as choice alternatives (e.g. chocolate cake or vegetable soup). When participants were presented with conflicting choice items together, the choice items were perceived to complement each other and participants tended to evaluate the tempting items more positively. When people hold a positive attitude towards an item, they start balancing the conflicting goals as if they were complementary goals (e.g. “If I have the vegetable soup for entrée, I can have the chocolate cake as a treat for dessert”).

Fishbach and Zhang (2008) also found that when items were presented separately, they seemed to compete against each other and participants then tended to evaluate the goal item more positively. This is also the case when being presented to temptations only, as temptations seem to automatically activate the desired goal (Fishbach, Friedman & Kruglanski, 2003). What seems to happen is that the conflicting goals start to compete against each other when presented separately and thus the more important goal is highlighted (e.g. eating healthy).

Highlighting and balancing goals
There is an interesting link between highlighting or balancing goals and the way goals are represented or framed as discussed in the article How to increase motivation to goal adherence. When people highlight a goal they feel very committed to their goal and see their achievements as a result of their past actions or in terms of what has been accomplished to date. In other words, they exhibit a high level of intrinsic motivation or the feeling that the decision to adhere to their goal is fully self-determined. In contrast, people who balance conflicting goals see their actions as part of a progress (i.e. remains to be accomplished). Consequently, they start to balance the conflicting goals as if they were complementary (“If I eat pizza today, I can keep my diet tomorrow”; for example, see Fishbach & Dhar, 2005, Study 3). The problem is simply that today’s calorie intake is not re-set tomorrow. These effects suggests that a focus on commitment or progress promotes subsequent choices of action that either highlights the goal or balances between alternative goals.

Implications
Obviously, helping users or clients decide what goals are important, setting unambiguous goals, strengthening commitment towards change, and avoiding presenting or discussing conflicting goals at the same time seem to highlight important personal goals. However, one important consequence from this discussion is perhaps that we should abandon discussing barriers to treatment altogether as discussing barriers most often involves presenting information about conflicting goals at the same time which according to Fishbach and colleagues’ research results in a balancing of goals (“If I pack my gym bag now, I can go watch TV”). But this may be at odds with both treatment providers and users or clients who often consider addressing barriers very important.

Another very interesting implication of the perception of choice items that have underlying conflicting goals comes from priming studies (see e.g. Stroebe, Mensink, Aarts, Schut & Kruglanski, 2008). Priming refers to the phenomenon of activating concepts by exposing people to objects that increases the accessibility of the mental representation of that object or concept. For example, a website concerning nutritional counseling or weight management may present words or pictures relating to the semantic concept of food enjoyment (e.g. words like tasty or appetizing). At the same page, the website may present words or pictures relating to the semantic concept of eating healthy (e.g. words like slim or nutritious). This seems to trigger psychological processes such as balancing between conflicting goals, creating commitment uncertainty, making short-term goals more salient, etc. – processes that are all related to unsuccessful behaviour change. The implication is that one should avoid triggering a balancing of conflicting goals, but rather focus on food enjoyment or eating healthy separately to activate a highlighting.

Conclusion
It appears to be unproblematic to provide users with for example healthy and nutritious and delicious and tasty recipes or food items separately. The problem is when people are presented with both at the same time which unfortunately often is the case. Just imagine all the choices people have at their local grocery store. It is easy to see how people can end up thinking: “If I buy the low-fat milk, I can have the hot dogs” (i.e. balancing conflicting goals). Furthermore, imagine all the unhealthy products that are presented as healthy under labels such as “natural”, “no added sugar” or “50% less fat”. These products prime people with conflicting goals automatically which provides people excuses for purchasing the salami with 30% fat content because it is promoted as having 50% less fat. Well, it may be healthier relative to salami with 60% fat, but it is still unhealthy.

Key reading(s):

Fishbach, A. & Zhang, Y. (2008). Together or apart: When goals and temptations complement versus compete. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 547-559.

References:

Fishbach, A. & Dhar, R. (2005). Goals as excuses or guides: The liberating effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 370-377.

Fishbach, A., Friedman, R. S. & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Leading us not unto temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 296-309.

Stroebe, W., Mensink, W., Aarts, H., Schut, H. & Kruglanski, A. W. (2008). Why dieters fail: Testing the goal conflict model of eating. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 26-36.

   Send article as PDF   

Behaviour Change and Technology (BCT) is a blog written by 17 European designers and researchers.  BCT presents scientific news, reviews, and perspectives on how people shape technology and how technology shapes people in return. You can read more about us here.

We kick-off with a serial of three articles on goal adherence. Often, people find themselves surrounded in environments that can potentially compromise their personal goals. The question is how we can help people navigate in these environment that are not at odds with their personal long-term goals? As you will see, this has consequences for how we should present people with choices and how we represent goals.

If you have any questions or remarks, please leave us a comment or contact us at info@behaviourchangeandtechnology.org.

And if you enjoy reading our blog, please subscribe to our RSS Feed.

Happy readings and happy blogging!

   Send article as PDF   

People are most often quite capable of achieving personal goals such as getting good grades, dieting, or donating money to charities when they are able and motivated. However, goals can often be associated with uncertainty which can reduce motivation to goal adherence. Fishbach and colleagues have recently begun to discover how we can increase motivation to goal achievement by focusing on either what people have accomplished to date or what they have yet to accomplish.

What determines action?
In a series of studies in several domains such as education, consumer behaviour, charitable fundraising, and dieting, Fishbach and colleagues have found that representing a goal in terms of commitment (i.e. achieved to date) or progress (i.e. left to go) makes people focus on different aspects of that goal that can increase or decrease motivation to pursue the goal (e.g. Koo & Fishbach, 2008). However, the effect of representing goals as commitment- or progress-based is determined by commitment certainty (for review, see Fishbach, 2008).

When commitment is uncertain, low, or when people are unsure about their level of goal commitment, they are primarily concerned about evaluating whether a goal is worth pursuing. But how can people evaluate whether a goal is worth pursuing? One place to look for an answer is to look at prior accomplishments or what has been achieved to date. Consequently, focusing on accomplishments to date should be more motivating than focusing on what is left to accomplish.

In contrast, it appears that if a goal is unambiguously important, people are certain about their goals (Brunstein & Gollwitzer, 1996). And people who are highly committed to a goal are interested in knowing what remains to be accomplished. But how can people evaluate whether they are progressing towards a goal? The answer is to look at lack of progress, what remains, or what is yet to be accomplished. As a result, focusing on what is yet to be accomplished should be more motivating than focusing on what is accomplished to date.

Determining commitment certainty
The implications from this line of research seem clear. When communicating to people either one-on-one or via technology, the way we represent goals (commitment vs. progress) should take into consideration commitment certainty to increase motivation towards goals and advance performance. But when do we know when commitment is high or low?

One possible way of determining commitment certainty is to look at the presence of incentives or rewards. People should ideally feel that what they do, such as studying, is their own decision and that they are doing it without any obvious external incentives present (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In such cases, we can assume that commitment certainty is high and that goals are unambiguously important. According to Fishbach’s research, we should thus focus on what is yet to be accomplished to increase motivation to goal adherence. This would most likely be the case for most students in compulsory courses required to attain their degree.

But, in many cases, communication one-on-one or via technology relies on extrinsic persuasive strategies which can make people who are uncertain or low in motivation to just roll with the persuader. That is, students’ motivation for committing to a course and fulfilling the course requirements are determined by external demands such as money for good grades, praise by the lecturer, or threat of punishment such as fail on the exam. This would most likely be the case for students in elective courses where commitment certainty usually is high (“Is this the right course for me?”). According to Fishbach’s research, we should thus focus on what is accomplished to enhance commitment and build intrinsic motivation. Help students increase their motivation by assessing the amount of time and effort invested in studying or completing an academic task to date.

Conclusion
So why bother with commitment certainty and goal representations? After all, are not incentives or extrinsic motivation suitable strategies for making people purchase products, donate to charity, or do some studying? When there is no need for a long-term user or customer relationship or commitment, then probably yes. However, few would argue that they do not need long-term users or customers that are committed and loyal. Thus, the long-term effects of commitment uncertainty and lack of intrinsic motivation are such that users and customers will most likely purchase fewer items, discontinue charitable contributions, and give lower priority to or drop out of class (for review, see Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999).

Key reading(s):

Koo, M. & Fishbach, A. (2008). Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un)accomplished goal actions affect motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 183-195.

References:

Brunstein, J. C., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). Effects of failure on subsequent performance: The importance of self-defining goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 395-407.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R. & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-688.

Fishbach, A. (2008). The dynamics of self-regulation. In Forgas, J., Baumeister, R. F. & Tice, D. M. (Eds.): The psychology of self-regulation. New York: Psychology Press.

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Relevant links

Ayelet Fishbach

   Send article as PDF