From nudges to superfoods: the realities of behaviour change
Quick fixes are always tempting—whether it’s a catchy nudge or a superfood promising miraculous results. Yet, any seasoned practitioner knows that real, lasting change requires more than surface-level solutions. In these recent articles, I examine the deeper factors that drive behaviour change, from understanding motivation to recognising the pitfalls of oversimplified interventions. This summary brings together all the key insights for easy reference!
TL;DR: Quick fixes like nudges or superfoods may offer short-term gains. However, lasting behaviour change demands a deeper understanding of motivation, context, and the complexities that shape human decisions.
Motivation: The Often Misunderstood Cornerstone of Behaviour Change
Motivation is central to any behaviour change initiative, yet it is frequently oversimplified. The COM-B model divides motivation into two types: reflective and automatic. This distinction is crucial for designing effective interventions.
Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivation: How They Fit into COM-B
In response to reader questions, I explored how intrinsic motivations—such as autonomy, competence, and relatedness from Self-Determination Theory—align with the COM-B model. While COM-B does not explicitly label these needs, they are embedded within its components.
Clarifying how intrinsic and extrinsic motivations fit within COM-B can sharpen intervention strategies, making them more effective and sustainable.
The Seduction of Quick Fixes: Superfoods and Nudges
The appeal of quick fixes is strong. Many hope to solve complex problems with a simple nudge or a superfood. Adding kale to an unbalanced diet, however, will not transform health. Similarly, superficial interventions rarely lead to lasting change.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Nudges and superfoods have their place but are not panaceas. Real change requires addressing deeper systemic factors, whether in nutrition or in the drivers of human behaviour.
Case Study: Schiphol Airport’s Misguided Nudge
A case study from Schiphol Airport highlights the risks of oversimplification. The airport used the “watching eyes” effect—a popular nudge—to deter drivers from using the departures zone for pick-ups. This intervention, however, did not address the real motivations, such as convenience and cost-saving. As a result, the nudge missed the mark.
The case underscores the importance of understanding the broader context before applying behavioural science solutions.
Advanced Insights: Complexity and Context in Behavioural Science
For those interested in exploring these ideas further, I have compiled a collection titled Tales from the Behavioural Science Twilight Zone. These stories delve into the challenges of applying behavioural science in real-world contexts, where theory often diverges from practice.
From the difficulties of scaling interventions to the human factors that derail even the best-laid plans, these articles offer both cautionary insights and practical guidance.
If these insights resonate, I also conduct workshops to dive deeper into applying these ideas. For a limited time, I’m offering discounts on workshops booked before the end of 2024. Please reach out if you’d like to discuss how we can tailor these strategies to your projects—there are still openings for sessions this year.
Marketing Insights | Consumer Insights | Consumer Behaviour | Customer Experience
2moI think the words sensible consistency makes sense to me now because quick fixes are like the duct tape that gives away the moment you want it to work the most. But sensible consistency in changing human behaviour is not a simple, straight road. Its got twists and turns that are interesting like in the Schiphol Airport case study. Its interesting to note that even with the “watching eyes” effect the drives did not change behaviour but we also have to ask what happened that they were getting customers at that place. Demand and supply feeds off on each other.