ABC of Behaviour Change Theories
Altering the incidence of any particular behaviour requires a change in at least one of capability, motivation or opportunity to engage in the activity. Capability refers to the psychological and physical abilities to perform a behaviour, and includes knowledge and skills; motivation involves all the processes that energise and direct behaviour, including not just goals, plans and beliefs but also 'automatic' processes involving emotions, habits and impulses; and opportunity involves all factors that are external to an individual that may influence engagement with an activity, ranging from the physical environments in which people spend time to the social and cultural milieu that dictates how we perceive and think about particular activities. To maximise the potential benefit of behaviour change interventions, it is important for designers to understand how these factors of capability, motivation and opportunity vary as a function of particular behaviours, target populations and contexts.
The term 'theory' can be defined in many different ways. At its core it is a coherent description of a process that is arrived at by a process of inference, provides an explanation for observed phenomena and generates predictions. In the context of behaviour change, theories seek to explain why, when and how a behaviour does or does not occur, and the important sources of influence to be targeted in order to alter the behaviour. They should reflect an integration of the knowledge accumulated about the relevant mechanisms of action and moderators of change.
The Behaviour Change Wheel
The BCW has at its core a model of behaviour known as COM-B. The initials stand for 'capability', 'opportunity', 'motivation' and 'behaviour'. and the model recognises that behaviour is part of an interacting system involving all these components. Changing behaviour will involve changing one or more of them in such a way as to put the system into a new configuration and minimise the risk of it reverting. The BCW identifies different intervention options that can be applied to changing each of the components and policies that can be adopted to deliver those intervention options.
For example, if one wished to reduce the propensity of young drivers to engage in risky driving practices (e.g. driving too fast), one should canvass all the options including improving their 'capability' to read the road and adjust their driving to the conditions, restricting their 'opportunity' to drive recklessly by means of speed limiters or speed humps, and/or establishing whether a promising approach would be to try to change their 'motivation' to drive safely through mass media campaigns or legislation and enforcement. Any or all of these may have some effect but the BCW provides a systematic way of determining which options are most likely to achieve the change required.
If one thinks of intervention design as like playing a game of chess, this Guide is an introduction to the opening moves. It should get designers off to a good start. It is not a substitute for a detailed understanding of the behaviour in question but a way of harnessing whatever understanding exists and identifying valuable areas for extending that understanding.
The BCW was developed, not only to aid intervention design, but also to improve the process of intervention evaluation and theory development. It provides a systematic way of characterising interventions that enables their outcomes to be linked to mechanisms of action, and it can help to diagnose why an intervention may have failed to achieve its desired goal.
The BCW was developed from 19 frameworks of behaviour change identified in a systematic literature review. As noted earlier, none of these frameworks were found to be comprehensive. In addition, few of them were conceptually coherent or clearly linked to a model of behaviour change. Some of the frameworks assumed that behaviour was primarily driven by beliefs and perceptions, while others placed greater emphasis on unconscious biases and yet others focussed on the social environment. Clearly, all of these are important and needed to be brought together in coherent manner. The BCW aimed to address these limitations by synthesizing the common features of the frameworks and linking them to a model of behaviour that was sufficiently broad that it could be applied to any behaviour in any setting.
The BCW consists of three layers. The hub of the wheel identifies the sources of the behaviour that could prove fruitful targets for intervention. It uses the COM-B model for this. Surrounding this is a layer of nine intervention functions to choose from depending on the particular COM-B analysis one arrives at. Then the outer layer, the rim of the wheel, identifies seven types of policy that one can use to deliver these intervention functions.
So now to go back to my RAC Foundation resource. I am at the stage where it is introducing COM-B.
Regarding 'Capability', it seems to me that the psychological and physical abilities to perform the behaviour of appreciating change in driving conditions include eyesight, hazard awareness, assessing risk/danger. There are definitely 'knowledge and skills' needs in order to perform this behaviour. Although I can't think of how to articulate my thoughts here, I think there is also something to be said here too about the skill of being able to appreciate the consequences of NOT doing the behaviour.
I think the 'Opportunity' aspect is massive in my efforts here as it involves matters that are external to the pupil that affect behaviours. In terms of IN the car at the time, distractions will effect how well a pupil can perform the behaviour, from the presence of peers, the weather, unfamiliar location, darkness, and these external factors may effect their emotional state of mind which could have a bearing on how well they can/cannot perform the behaviour. Other factors are the presence (or not) of street furniture, warning signs, the design of the road. Other factors include technology like telematics (black box), presence of speed cameras (or not), sat nav speed warning audibles. Even the characteristics of the vehicle inc power, visibility, maintenance of tyres/brakes/lights/wipers could all be external factors.
Re 'motivation' the desire pupils will have to perform this behaviour might be influenced by role models or peers, conditioning from family members in the upbringing of the pupil, and the beliefs developed over many years. The social setting of the pupil might have a bearing on what they have become used to regarding the driving behaviours of family or friends. How much a pupil is prepared to structuralise their journeys - plan the route, assess the hazards, prep the vehicle, manage in-car distractions. Are they inclined to think in terms of goals relating to getting from A-B safely, within a certain timescale, the shortest or fastest route. Will they be inclined to think of a journey as a risk in any way, where the risks alter at all. Would a pupil be able to recognise how their ability or desire to do this behaviour could be affected with fatigue, emotional state (stress, upset), illness, failing to get their eyesight checked. I also wonder about how motivated a pupil is to transfer learning of the theory over to the practical, I'm thinking here in terms of knowledge of who has priority at a cross-roads, or when merging on to a d/c or motorway. Turning right at a crossroads is a massive increase in risk associated with it DUE to the need to understand who has to be given way to..... the presence or not of white paint, right green filter arrow. I think enforcement can be a motivating factor here, in terms of the potential for getting caught speeding or driving w/o due care, points on licence, fines etc. But also the reliance on black box telematics these days is tending to suggest that the motivation to perform the behaviour is simply not there unless there is the threat of increased insurance premiums (or conversely decreased premiums for evidenced good driving). The other factor that springs to mind regarding motivation is simply that it takes more effort to develop this behaviour so that it becomes habitual. I'm not sure if that is an effort that would be welcomed.
The RAC Foundation document is now talking of the importance of piloting my intervention with members of my target market. Yet I need to start developing the content for my intervention first (I would have thought). I'm a little confused about the ordering of events that this document is suggesting I take. It is also now about to intro me to selecting and using BCT's which should feather in nicely with my supplementary reading of the other 2 publications. Regarding piloting of the intervention though, I have got experience of attempting to introduce this concept to dozens of pupils since 2009. I know from experience that to date, when introduced and addressed in-car in the manner that I have to date, it is very hit and miss as to the effectiveness of the desired goal. My efforts to date include making my pupils aware of the need for this behaviour via my driving videos, as well as bringing up the subject within in-car training sessions. I have had discussions relating to their desire to perform the behaviour, and the consequences and they always indicate a willingness to embrace the behaviour in theory. I have found transferring that acceptance into the effort required to make it habitual is very sporadic. What I have never done previously is thought about it in the terms that I am now learning about.
I find it interesting the given example above in the BCW para of the young driver engaged in risky driving practices. Taking time to train pupils in the skill "to read the road and adjust their driving to the conditions" is one thing, allowing them to practise/develop the skill in a structured way is another, but the success rate of the behaviour then being applied habitually regardless of the 'barriers' mentioned above is something entirely different. I intend to continue methodically through all the resources though.
Post a Comment