INTERVIEW - A Broader Perspective on Behaviour Change
If you’re actively interested in the application of behavioural science, you are probably familiar with the multi-talented Colin Strong and his articles exploring the discipline from a variety of perspectives. And if you haven’t heard of him yet, this interview is an opportunity to get to know Colin, learn how Ipsos applies behavioural science to client challenges and how it can be used to facilitate pro-environmental behaviours.
Behaven — Hi Colin, can you briefly introduce yourself and talk about your area of expertise?
Colin Strong — Sure! I’m Colin Strong and I am the Head of Behavioural Science at Ipsos MORI, a market research company, for a range of different clients and territories, marketing strategies and policy challenges. My area of expertise is fairly precise. It is the application of behavioural science to our clients’ challenges. Within the field of behavioural science, there are several approaches to addressing various challenges. The area which I concentrate on is behaviour change i.e., issues where there's a desirable outcome our clients are hoping for that's currently either not being done, not being done consistently or not being evidenced. Or perhaps there's an issue of concern about maintaining those target behaviours. So that's how we talk about the tangible manifestation of behavioural science at Ipsos.
Can you tell us more about the process of applying behavioural science to client challenges? Are your clients usually aware that the challenge involves a behavioural science element or do you analyse that for them?
That’s a good question. Behavioural science has academic roots that go quite far back in time. However, as a practitioner activity, it is still relatively new. As a result, from the client-side of things, there is still a bit of discussion on the expectations from behavioural science. Some people tend to have fairly well-formed expectations of it while others much less but are indeed fairly open and curious to understand better.
It’s fair to say that quite often we don't necessarily get a brief coming through which has a behavioural science label on it, so to speak. We see a vast range of briefs and I think it's our job to review them and say whether or not we think we can potentially add value. However, there are also many times when clients themselves mention that they would require some behavioural science input. Some of them even understand how behavioural science can offer value and are interested to see what we bring to the table while others have a specific kind of approach in mind that they'd like to have reflected in what we do.
So, I would say applying this discipline to client challenges is usually an effort from both ends.
That’s interesting. Ipsos developed the MAPPS model for behaviour change. Was this an indication that, aside from analysing your clients' challenges, you also wanted to dig deeper into the strategy and implementation of solutions?
I think what we can do by taking a behaviour change approach as seen in MAPPS is really to build on a good understanding of issues that is derived from a full range of market research techniques. The teams at Ipsos are typically very familiar with the category and the nature of a particular challenge, such as ‘customer experience’, ‘brand and communications’, etc. However, the value of using behavioural science is to provide a more science-based, user-centric underpinning of the specific challenge.
Models like MAPPS allow us to move beyond recommendations and provide very tangible guidance to our clients. Essentially, how we operate is by framing it as the ‘3Ds’. First is the diagnosis, to really understand the issue, the target behaviours, and so on. Next is the design of what the interventions might look like to address that particular diagnosis. And finally, we have the delivery because it does not stop at communications. There are several other mechanisms that you might want to think about in terms of delivering on those intervention design principles to drive change.
Conceptually speaking, you talk about behavioural science and then specifically, behaviour change. What according to you is the difference between the two?
The definition of behavioural science is often associated with an image we’re quite familiar with by now: an iceberg. This represents a notion that 95% of our behaviour is determined by the mechanisms that sit under the water, out of sight i.e., out of our consciousness. The intuitive, non-conscious aspects of behaviour are heavily weighted in behavioural science. Whilst that is part of the story, we also need to look at things holistically because many behaviours aren't purely intuitive. In the case of COVID, for example, a lot of behaviours were expected to change and new ones to be adapted. Cultural influence and social norms came into play, such as resisting wearing a mask in the US. Behavioural science helps us understand how different behaviours are influenced and impacted.
Extending from that, it is helpful when you're trying to change behaviour to think about the whole raft of different mechanisms that sit underneath that behaviour. What are the different aspects of motivation to consider if we're going to be shaping a new behaviour? What are the different capability factors? What are the different kinds of people operating in a social and cultural context? These questions are seated in the principles of behavioural science but help us formulate ways to execute behaviour change processes.
There is no standard explanation of the roots of behavioural science across practitioners and academics. Many theories from psychology paved the way for behavioural science but are looked at in isolation to behavioural science. What are your thoughts on this?
As practitioners, our jobs are to put the client’s question first and then decide which body of knowledge or theories are going to be most useful to unpick it, because there is a vast sea of theories. And a lot of theories in psychology don't necessarily direct on what can be done. They provide a good understanding of the challenge, but it remains up to us to find the appropriate ways, among many theories, to solve that challenge.
As academics, it is common to focus on and look for answers within a specific school of thought. But as practitioners, we have the luxury of casting around and thinking about what theory is most useful for any given challenge. This approach has its drawbacks of course because we're expecting policymakers and marketing strategists to keep up with our understanding of these different bodies of work. It's not a very scalable solution and not always helpful in a field where you're trying to drive change. That’s where I think behaviour change models such as COM-B or MAPPS helps a lot. They bridge the gap between science and its application. They help us use different theories and reference them consistently and systematically.
Do you also apply behavioural science to encourage sustainable behaviours? If yes, would you say these behaviours are difficult to change?
Yes, we do work on sustainable behaviours and I would say changing these behaviours is a hugely multifaceted challenge. As an organisation, we've got a good understanding of sustainability-related issues but there are some key questions we consider when addressing sustainable behaviours. To what extent is this the task of the consumer? To what extent is it the role of governments and brands to have done their work and provide a set of choices to consumers?
For example, food labels are a popular topic. There is a lot of complexity around food labelling and an awful lot of emphasis placed on how a small label is expected to deliver change, both in terms of consumers being able to understand the composition of the product and also its health and environmental impact. A different example would be helping people in flood-prone areas to adapt to climate change consequences. Within these two different examples, there are already so many different behavioural aspects to consider including motivation, emotion, capability, identity and outcome expectations. Additionally, cultural values and social norms play an important role in changing these behaviours.
In this context, the works of Stephen Reicher come to mind. He talks about the ‘we-ness’ factor i.e., presenting and thinking about challenges in a collective way. People are generally willing to consider the greater good and the collective needs of the communities that they live in. And so, for sustainable behaviours, finding ways to build that sense of collective action is important.
We often hear that humans are very selfish, irrational beings and this is a widely accepted concept. While there is some truth in that, I'm not entirely convinced. The core theme that reflects our work in the area of sustainable behaviours is the idea that ‘people often want to do the right thing’. We're starting to see some new perspectives around this idea that we are driven by a desire to do good by others and ourselves. The question is, how do you support people to achieve those positive outcomes? This is why behavioural science is important. It helps us better understand and facilitate pro-environmental behaviours.
Lastly, do you have any suggestions of papers, books or experts that you would like us to forward to our readers?
Lately, I've been particularly interested in books that emphasise our beliefs about what it means to be a human. I’ve noticed this topic to be increasing in importance and I think it’s attributed to living in an era of climate change and digital disruption. I think beliefs about the way we see ourselves in the world is going to be a topic that we are all ever more curious about given the times we live in.
I am always interested in the way in which science operates and on that point, I recommend a Mary Midgley book, ‘Science and Poetry’. A publication more centrally involving behavioural science is ‘The Knowledge Illusion’ by Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach. I think it offers excellent perspectives on our ways of thinking. Lastly, I would recommend the work of Stephen Reicher as he advocates for a more social, collective outlook on changing behaviours which I think can be understated within behavioural science.
Science and Poetry, by Mary Midgley: https://www.routledge.com/Science-and-Poetry/Midgley/p/book/9780415378482
The Knowledge Illusion, by Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach: https://www.philipfernbach.com/the-knowledge-illusion
About Stephen Reicher: https://risweb.st-andrews.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/stephen-david-reicher(a0a908db-1bb8-4d5e-ab30-f47643e35169).html
Colin Strong’s website: https://colinstrong.co.uk
About the MAPPS model: https://www.ipsos.com/en-eg/science-behaviour-change