Moving towards mutual benefits in Behavioural Science

“We live in the world our questions create…” - David Cooperider

“…meaningful questions that will combat the relentless pursuit of pathology, and ones that will help discover hidden strengths that contain the seeds to construct solutions to otherwise unsolvable problems”  - Clay Graybeal

Last year I co-hosted a workshop exploring behavioural influences on wellbeing. During this session, we noticed the group working on physical activity for youth seemed a bit stuck. There were lots of things mapped out getting in the way of moving, but not many things enabling it. We tried a different tack: are there folks who are already moving and benefiting from physical activity? There was an immediate shift in energy. Yes, young people come to mind. A second probing question was posed: Is there something these kids are doing differently that is making a difference? Yes! They get up at 5am and pick up their mate to go training. They would knock on the door and wait. This buddy system and peer accountability was creating the social and physical environment to be active, giving us a far richer view of the situation. 

The sense of vitality these questions created between us, along with the stories and insights surfaced, have stayed with me. Indeed, holding this workshop experience has been helping define and unpack my increasing discomfort using; as we did in this example, Behavioural Science (BehSci) methods that prompt unpacking behavioural barriers first (Michie et al., 2014; Hauser et al 2018). I’ve been reflecting on how the wellbeing benefits we shared of vitality, along with strengths-spotting and behavioural insight might so easily have been missed - had we focused on the barriers at the expense of exploring what’s already working well. For research shows how conversations focused on what’s missing or required, can often be perceived as threats (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Threats act to narrow and focus attention on deficits, gaps and weaknesses (Baumeister et al., 2001), rather than opening up space for strengths and wisdom to emerge. The ‘tunnel vision’ can undermine generativity and innovation because broader possibilities simply aren’t available for us to access (Fredrickson, 2004). 

On the other hand, questions that inspire a sense of appreciation generate reflection, hope, and curiosity within and between us (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). This resonance brings our nervous systems into coherence; in alignment with each other (Siegel, 2012). When our nervous systems are attuned, the trust signaled makes it feel safer to say things (Porges, 2009) creating the conditions for everyone to make meaningful contributions. The chemistry produced by this coherence allows more complex access to the part of our brain where we can respond, rather than react. These mind-brain-body interactions promote feeling calm, and good about things; broadening the possibility to tap into collective potential such as creativity, Our System 2 capacities like reasoning and critical thinking (Fredrickson, 2004; Gilbert, 2010). Taken together, we might say these ‘generative questions’ create the conditions; “the world”, to be at our best.

Inspired by such interdisciplinary science, this article attempts to explore these tensions around what gets talked about the most, and the potential impact of these approaches in BehSci. I’ve looked at studies and tools that while making BehSci more accessible, seemingly elicit more about what’s going wrong, than what's going right. As a neurodiverse Pākehā in the Rainbow Community I’ve always had an interest in social justice and am relentlessly driven to optimise things. So I’m looking through a Design Justice lens: who is benefitting from the behavioural research and how are these benefits shared (Costanza-Chock, 2020). With that in mind, I then try to build on our field’s conversations on expanding ethics, by inviting reflection on how we can build capability, opportunities and motivation for reciprocal benefits of the research and design across different levels of scale. First, a quick tour of the COM-B model and method for background, and language if you’re new to the field. It’s not the only methodology, but it is one of the most established. 

COM-B

Image from The COM-B system for understanding behaviour, Unlocking Behaviour Change.

This model was developed to understand the drivers of behaviour, and what needs to change or happen in order for a specific behaviour to occur (Michie et al., 2011). COM-B proposes that behaviour occurs as a result of the interaction between Capability, Opportunity and Motivation. In other words, people and populations act when they have the capability (knowledge and skills) and opportunity (our social and physical environment), and have sufficient motivation (our automatic and reflective mind-body processes) in the moment in the face of other competing motivations. The Unlocking Behaviour Change website unpacks the model below in more depth, with stacks of information and resources. 

COM-B informs the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) for designing behaviour change “interventions” by “starting with a behavioural analysis of the problem, making a behavioural diagnosis of what needs to change” (Michie et al., 2014, p. 27). In this methodology, the COM-B model enables an understanding of the range of factors that influence behaviour: at the level of individuals, groups and systems. The barriers prevent following through on the “target behaviour” and enablers are insights on behaviour that can be leveraged to make it easier (or harder) to start, stop or continue this desired behaviour. The model has been used in a variety of contexts and fields such as social change agencies, health (Flannery et al., 2018) and in public policy along with supporting more robust Theory of Change models (Mayne, 2017). The BCW was developed in the context of health, which may account for its ‘diagnostic’ approach consistent with pathology. The main concerns I have with this approach relate to the limitations of ‘diagnostic’ problem solving frames and whether a pathologising starting point could actually be perpetuating harm to marginalised communities in projects aiming to change behaviour (Graybeal, 2001). I’ve identified several examples where COM-B has been used in research and design of projects and tools aiming to change behaviour, with a framing that focuses on behavioural barriers. 

A bias towards barriers in behavioural science?

Tension #1: Limiting possibilities 

The first area of tension is how conversations focused on what’s missing or required can limit possibilities. In one study by Flannery et al (2018), the COM-B methodology was applied to systematically identify the barriers and enablers to physical activity in pregnancy. A question posed at the beginning of the interview reads: “Has a HCP made you aware of the risks surrounding your pregnancy?” (p. 4). The science cited earlier suggests that focusing on ‘risk factors’ and ‘deficits’ can get people stuck on what’s wrong or missing. These mechanisms may account for women “providing more information about barriers than enablers” (p. 10). I wonder how this research process was beneficial for the participants themselves. Did a deficit focus potentially hijack participants' ability to see and self-determine where change might be possible? 

COM-B also sits behind the Behavioural Insights Team’s “Barrier Identification Tool''. While it’s encouraging to see BehSci made more accessible, there’s no “Enabler Identification Tool” to help folks navigate what’s already working; what’s strong. Or generative questions that help surface where strengths might be already lurking (Bushe, 2013). Arguably by identifying what “encourages and discourages” behaviour, this tool may provide some insight into strengths that can be leveraged. But again, I worry that starting with what gets in the way; the amount of “barrier” language, narrows our attention to risks and things to be cautious about. Rather than expanding on what works, and what could be. If questions that are anchored in a deficit frame limit possibilities, and those anchored in a strengths frame generate them, how could we adapt such BehSci tools to better serve participants? 

Tension #2: Equity

My other concern is how approaches grounded in barriers, gaps and deficits are shown to perpetuate narratives that reinforce negative stereotypes of community, in part by placing the problems and burden to change on to people (Brough et al., 2004; Fogarty et al., 2018). Subsequently, conversations centered on ‘getting’ folks to change can lose sight of the larger systems shifts needed to make it easier to act, and reinforce existing inequities (Nogueira & Schmidt, 2021). 

A recently published BehSci resource is the Little Jab Book. With its vast array of behavioural insights, practical examples and case studies across different cultures, it’s great how the Little Jab Book is also making behavioural science easier to access. While not explicitly referencing COM-B, the Little Jab Book covers each of the factors with an explicit focus on unpacking the barriers to getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Given what we know about generativity and its sources, the author's intention for the guide to “serve as a source of inspiration and creativity for program managers, policymakers, and organizations as they work towards mobilizing the communities they serve to get a COVID-19 vaccine” seems at odds with what science says will likely happen in practice. That is, if we start at that point of constraints, rather than strengths. More concerningly is how an approach grounded in barriers, gaps and deficits is shown to perpetuate narratives that reinforce negative stereotypes of community by placing the problems on to people (Fogarty et al., 2018). Take the journey map for instance (p. 15). 

Image sourced directly from the Little Jab Book, p. 15

If we’re reducing a journey down to behavioural barriers like “inertia” and “forgetfulness”, without aspirations, could this be painting a picture of weaknesses, failure and inferiority that adds to harmful narratives? And in doing so, inadvertently limiting possibilities? Perpetuating possible harm seems contrary to the aim of its co-author: Save the Children, who focus on “the world’s most marginalized children’s rights and welfare” (p. 39), so I’m curious as to why a strength approach isn’t integrated within the guide. Or why participatory approaches are offered as an option to consider on page 23 - rather than being foregrounded as possible means of power-sharing and generativity that better serve such marginalised communities (Blomkamp, 2018). Indeed ,had we not collaboratively taken the conversation in a direction of strengths  in the example I shared at the beginning, the “Positive Deviants” who did things differently may have gone unrecognised. Potentially elevating outside ‘expertise’, rather than solutions already there (Singhal & Bjurstrom 2015; Dura, 2016). 

These recently published examples, although just a few, illustrate where a primary focus on barriers within BehSci becomes increasingly troublesome. I don’t intend to downplay the importance of inquiry into what gets in the way of wise decisions. I’m more concerned with inquiring into barriers in a way that contributes to people’s understanding of fulfilling their aspirations, rather than potentially derailing them. In other words, whether, how and to what extent mutual benefits are being considered.

Benefits

“It’s easy to assume that losing weight or quitting smoking is desirable, but there are a lot blurrier areas; what wins out when choices are made about things that might benefit me, but not you, or both of us but not the system at large, or when two systems have genuinely conflicting “best interests” - Ruth Schmidt 

The point Ruth makes on the ‘blurriness’ of who benefits from behavioural projects again points to a possible blind spot in BehSci, and together with colleagues call for more interdisciplinary partnerships to combat these (Schmidt & Stenger, 2021). I’m interested in how Nesta has mapped a “Landscape of Innovation Approaches” to help innovators challenge any status quo biases, and look beyond their usual methods to what other disciplines offer. In a similar way I wonder how we can bring more visibility towards shared value. After all, it's hard to challenge any bias towards benefits if we can’t see them. To some extent The Centre for Advanced Hindsight enables a line of sight with their ethics tool. However, reflections are limited to the benefits of the “key behaviour” rather than created within the projects themselves.  

In the spirit of optimising things, I’ve attempted to add a strengths lens to the COM-B model. To help locate who the project is serving, and enable reflection on how we can strengthen capabilities, aspirations (motivation) and the social and physical context (opportunity) for reciprocal benefits at different levels of scale. In other words, locating our power and agency to ensure shared benefits. The framework links COM-B with reflective questions based on sources in this article, that balance a focus on problem solving to include possibilities for shared value. By substituting the ‘B’ in COM-B from ‘Behaviour’ to ‘Benefits’, the framework hopefully provides an easier way for BehSci’ers - very much including myself - to reflect on whether and how they’re building capability, opportunities and motivation for reciprocal benefits of the research and design. This isn’t supposed to be an exhaustive list of questions, rather a starting point for reflection. 

Credit: This image was inspired by the work of Dark Matter Labs in their article on participatory systems mapping, and by the provocations of Kelly Ann McKercher in their book Beyond Sticky Notes.

The COM factors sit on the Y axis to categorise the influences on behaviour. The X axis locates the benefits (B) according to scale; individual, community and systems. In this way, instead of potentially seeing the project as a means to an end to enact behaviour change; i.e., as transactional, the framework prompts reflection on the potential impacts of our approach and frame through the shared benefits i.e., as relational. 

“The creation of new images, metaphors, or physical representations that have two qualities: they change how people think so that new options for decisions and actions become available to them, and they stimulate compelling images people act on” - Gervas Bushce

Does the project contribute to greater individual physical and mental health through the generation of powerful images and metaphors of what might be (Busche, 2013)? Combat any self-judgement by sharing the ins and outs of decision making with participants? Does it build better social connectivity; a strong predictor of mental health and wellbeing (Saeri et al., 2018)?. Does it help people better see and self-determine where change is possible through generative questions?

At the level of community, how does the project attend to how our bodies, minds and environment are always in interplay? In order to support generativity for the co-regulation of people’s nervous systems that enable the conditions for coherence, connection and creativity? Is there a platform to learn and make things together? How do interactions with community protect and strengthen collective dignity and agency (Huriwai & Baker, 2016)? And / or does the project contribute to systems awareness, to enable a systemic compassionate response (Worline & Dutton, 2017) and more equitable change (Schmidt & Stenger, 2021)? How can the project help shift narratives and norms, and promote more participatory policy making (Blomkamp, 2018)? And in doing so, make policy that reflects the reality, values, and aspirations of the people themselves, rather than the policy team (Levy, 1999)? 

Final reflection

I’m excited about the opportunities to expand each other's capacity to thrive, through the way we practice BehSci with people. To more fully realise aspirations and wellbeing, we could seek to strengthen shared benefits in behavioural insights research and application. Benefits both in the moment and beyond, both within and between us - when space opens up for strengths to emerge. The pathways may lie in our capacity to check our frame and focus of attention. To affirm the people we work with and for by sharing value. We might choose to reframe a focus on problem solving to possibilities for compassion: to notice, address and prevent any causes of harm and promote wellbeing. Creating the conditions for strengths and wisdom that already lurk to surface for more equitable change. 

I invite your feedback on the topic and framework of shared benefits, and would love to connect with fellow BehSci’ers interested in compassion-centric and wellbeing-promoting processes for equity. 

"The world doesn't change one person at a time. It changes as networks of relationships form among people who discover they share a common cause and vision of what's possible" - Margaret J Wheatley

Wee notes

[1] Thank you to Ash Buchanan who shared the phrase “collective compassion” in a heartwarming conversation. 

Thank you also to Vishal George for conversations on how we can use science to share science, and for the opportunity to work on some amazing projects with beautiful people. 

References

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.323

Blomkamp, Emma. (2018). The Promise of Co-Design for Public Policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77 (4), 729-743. doi: 77. 10.1111/1467-8500.12310

Brough, Mark & Bond, Chelsea & Hunt, Julian. (2004). Strong in the City: Toward a Strength Based Approach in Indigenous Health Promotion. Health Promotion Journal of Australia. doi: 15. 10.1071/HE04215

Bushe. G.R. (2013), Generative process, generative outcome: The transformational potential of appreciative inquiry, in D.L. Cooperrider, D.P. Zandee, L.N. Godwin, M. Avital & B. Boland (eds.) Organizational Generativity:The Appreciative Inquiry Summit and a Scholarship of Transformation (Advances in Appreciative Inquiry, Volume 4), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.89-113.

Colquhoun, S. and Dockery, A. M. (2012), “The link between Indigenous culture and wellbeing: Qualitative evidence for Australian Aboriginal peoples”, CLMR Discussion Paper Series 2012/1, Centre for Labour Market Research, Curtin Business School, January.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change.Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.

Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design Justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. MIT Press.

Dura, L. (2016). What’s wrong here? What’s right here? Introducing the positive deviance approach to community-based work. Connexions International Professional Communication Journal, 4, 57–89.

Flannery, C., McHugh, S., Anaba, A.E. (2018). Enablers and barriers to physical activity in overweight and obese pregnant women: an analysis informed by the theoretical domains framework and COM-B model. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 18, 178. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1816-z

Fogarty, W., Lovell, M., Langenberg, J. & Heron, M-J. (2018). Deficit Discourse and Strengths-based Approaches: Changing the Narrative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and Wellbeing, The Lowitja Institute, Melbourne.

Fredrickson B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 359(1449), 1367–1378. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1512

Gilbert, P. (2010). The compassionate mind : a new approach to life's challenges. London: Constable.

Graybeal, C. (2001). Strengths-Based Social Work Assessment: Transforming the Dominant Paradigm. Families in Society, 82(3), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.236

Hauser, O.P., Gino, F. & Norton, M.I. (2018). Budging beliefs, nudging behaviour. Mind Soc 17, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-019-00200-9

Huriwai, T & Baker, M. (2016). Manaaki: Mana enhancing and Mana protecting practice. Wellington: Te Rau Matatini.

Levy, M. (1999). Policy for Maori: values, assumptions and closing the gap. In Robertson, N. (Ed). Māori and psychology: Research and practice. Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the Māori & Psychology Research Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, Thursday 26th August 1999 (pp.7-15). Hamilton, New Zealand: Māori and Psychology Research Unit, University of Waikato.

Mayne, John. (2017). The COM-B Theory of Change Model (V3).

Michie, S., van Stralen, M.M. & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Sci 6, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42

Michie, S., Atkins, L., West, R., 2014. The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide To Designing Interventions. Silverback Publishing, London.

Nogueira, A., Schmidt, R. (2021) Participatory policy design: igniting systems change through prototyping. Policy Design and Practice. DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1888399

Pascale, R. T., Sternin, J., Sternin, M. (2010). The power of positive deviance: How unlikely innovators solve the world’s toughest problems. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Positive Deviance Initiative . (2010). Basic field guide to the positive deviance approach.

Porges S. W. (2009). The polyvagal theory: new insights into adaptive reactions of the autonomic nervous system. Cleveland Clinic journal of medicine, 76 Suppl 2(Suppl 2), S86–S90. https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.76.s2.17

Saeri, A. K., Cruwys, T., Barlow, F. K., Stronge, S., & Sibley, C. G. (2018). Social connectedness improves public mental health: Investigating bidirectional relationships in the New Zealand attitudes and values survey. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 52(4), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867417723990

Schmidt, R., & Stenger, K. (2021). Behavioral brittleness: The case for strategic behavioral public policy. Behavioural Public Policy, 1-26. doi:10.1017/bpp.2021.16

Siegel, D. J. (2012). The Norton series on interpersonal neurobiology. Pocket guide to interpersonal neurobiology: An integrative handbook of the mind. W W Norton & Co

Singhal, A., Bjurstrom, E. (2015). Reframing the practice of social research: Solving complex problems by valuing positive deviations. International Journal of Communication and Social Research, 3, 1–12.

Worline, M.C., & Dutton, J. (2017). Awakening Compassion at Work : The Quiet Power That Elevates People and Organizations. Ed. 1.