Recently, there has been an increase in interest for the integration of insights from the behavioural sciences into the design process. The Persuasive by Design model aims to provide an evidence-based framework by which designers gain access to relevant theoretical insights from the behavioural sciences. This paper examines the use of the model in two case studies that dealt with complex behavioural change situations. In both studies, the model proved to be a valuable aid in determining target behaviours and operationalizing intervention concepts, especially in the early stages of the design process. Some shortcomings of the model also transpired. The model was seen as too complex, and its psychological frame does not prevent designers to overlook possible systemic moderators of behaviour. Implications for further development of tools that give access to model insights are discussed.

1. Using the Persuasive by Design–Model to inform the design
of complex behaviour change interventions: two case studies
!
Sander Hermsen Sander Mulder Reint Jan Renes Remko van der Lugt
#EAD11
!
Université Paris René Decartes
April 2015

2. Touchpoints
Two year project
Academia and practice
!
Aim: making recent insights from the
behavioural sciences accessible and
usable for the creative industries
!
in sync with designerly methods /
without enforcing an overly
descriptive design method
!

3. This talk
Persuasive by Design – model: why?
Persuasive by Design – model: what?
!
Case I: Safety motivation
- brief and designs
- use of the model in design process
Case II: Permit application
- brief and designs
- use of the model in design process
!
Lessons learned
Implications for further work
New
Behavio
Goal achie
Comparing
goal with
behaviour
fitting ability,
motivation,
opportunity?
rying out
new behaviour
Goal abandoned:
no
no
discrepancy
perceived
discrepancy
yes
No
behaviour
change
wanting and being able to
seeing and realising
habits and impulses
Habitual or
impulsive
behaviour
repeat
until
habit
internal and external influences
on self-regulatory cycle
social influences, social support, commitment,
peer pressure, cooperation, social comparison,
filters and biases, lack of relevant information,
conflicting behaviour, conflicting norms,
excuses and white lies, frustration
Hermsen, S., Renes, R. J., & Frost, J. (2014). Persuasive by Design: a model and toolkit for designing evidence-based interventions.
p. 74-77. The Hague, NL: The Hague University of Applied Sciences
Hermsen, S., Mulder, S., Renes, R.J., & Van der Lugt, R. (2015). Using the Persuasive by Design-Model to inform the design of complex
Paris 2015.

4. Why a model?
Avoid cherry picking and
misappropriation of theories
!
Offer a structured approach to inform
designs with theory
!
Open up closed siloes
Attitude
Subjective
Norm
Perceived
Control
Intention Behavior

5. PbD-model
Synthesis of meta-analyses of
succesful behaviour change
interventions
!
Four basic principles:
1. Automatic vs Reflective
2. Self-regulatory cycle CUE
Changed
Behavior
Original
Behavior
No change in
Behavior
Goal achieved:
Self-Monitoring
Perception of own
behaviour
Comparison
of goal and
behaviour
Discrepancy?
fitting capability,
motivation
opportunity
Attempting
new behaviour
Disengagement
from goal
Goal
(want to / ought to)
no
no
yes
yes

6. PbD-model
Four basic principles:
1. Automatic vs Reflective
2. Self-regulatory cycle
!
3. Many influences, e.g.
■ Resistance
■ Biases, white lies
■ Frustration
■ Cognitive dissonance reduction
Competing /
Conflicting Goals
Resistance
Reactance and scepsis
Cognitive dissonance
reduction,
competing norms
Frustration,
motivation declineCompeting /
conflicting
behaviours, habits
Biases,
White lies
Lack of
relevant
information
Changed
Behavior
Goal achieved:
Self-Monitoring
Perception of own
behaviour
Comparison
of goal and
behaviour
Discrepancy?
fitting capability,
motivation
opportunity
Attempting
new behaviour
Disengagement
from goal
Goal
(want to / ought to)
no
no
yes
yes

7. PbD-model
Four basic principles:
1. Automatic vs Reflective
2. Self-regulatory cycle
3. Many influences
4. Inherently social
■ Social comparison
■ Social norms
■ Peer pressure
■ Social commitment
■ Cooperation and shared goals
■ Social inhibition, social validation
Social
Norms
Peer Pressure,
SocialValidation
Social
Commitment
Cooperation,
shared goals
Social
Comparison
Social
Inhibition
CUE
Changed
Behavior
Original
Behavior
No change in
Behavior
Goal achieved:
Self-Monitoring
Perception of own
behaviour
Comparison
of goal and
behaviour
Discrepancy?
fitting capability,
motivation
opportunity
Attempting
new behaviour
Disengagement
from goal
Goal
(want to / ought to)
no
no
yes
yes

8. 8
REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR
REFLEXIVE BEHAVIOR
boundary conditions
i
Communicator interventions aimed at
explicit, controlled behaviour
threats to self regulatory cycle
social influences on self regulatory cycle
steps in the self regulatory cycle
(model based, reflective behaviour)
i
Communicator interventions aimed at
implicit, automatic behaviour
i
Intervening in
automatic
behavior
placing
alternative
cue
attractiveness
and availability
of goal
Reporting
Performance
Feedback
i
disrupting
cue –
behavior link
i
removing
cue
+i
feasible steps
Action planning
i
i
i
Reporting
Performance
Feedback
Norm / Goal
Setting Targets by
communicating
norms and goals
Involving
Social Factors
Intervening in
reflective/controlled
behavior
Social
Norms
Peer Pressure,
SocialValidation
Social
Commitment
Cooperation,
shared goals
Social
Comparison
Social
Inhibition
Competing /
Conflicting Goals
Resistance
Reactance and scepsis
Cognitive dissonance
reduction,
competing norms
Frustration,
motivation declineCompeting /
conflicting
behaviours, habits
Biases,
White lies
Lack of
relevant
information
CUE
Changed
Behavior
Original
Behavior
No change in
Behavior
Goal achieved:
Self-Monitoring
Perception of own
behaviour
Comparison
of goal and
behaviour
Discrepancy?
fitting capability,
motivation
opportunity
Attempting
new behaviour
Disengagement
from goal
Goal
(want to / ought to)
no
no
yes
yes
Persuasive by Design
Behaviour Change Model
PbD-model
Full model: black and purple layers
display different intervention
possibilities
!
Very complex
Training
Question sets
!
Does using this model aid!
designers in theory-driven design?

9. Case 1 Interventions to increase Safety Motivation
in gas plant maintenance workers
Designer!
Mindmeeting, Publab, three Service Design Bureaus
!
Commissioner!
NAM – Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij
!
Brief!
Current safety policies at natural gas drilling facilities result in a clutter of safety-
related interventions. Design a tool or service that enables plant managers to select
those interventions (posters, trainings, etcetera) that ensure the safest possible
working environment

10. Method
Literature study
Analysis of current interventions
Design pressure cooker
Building prototypes
Piloting and evaluation

11. Designs
Attention: Gate
!
Whistleblowing behaviour: plant
walks
!
Ownership: Safety cards
!
Reduce clutter: no other
interventions, posters, etc. One
illuminated signpost for exceptions

12. Model use
In every phase.
!
Information: structuring interviews,
analysis of current interventions
Ideation: defining target
behaviours, structuring ‘drifting’
Build: guarding operationalization
Evaluation: devising viable
measurement instruments

13. Model use
BUT:
Behaviour frame had
shortcomings: draws attention
away from systemic factors
!
Most use in information, ideation
!
More expertise in design team than
usually the case

14. Case 2 Fast, simple and consistent procedures
for permit applications
Designer!
Design Innovation Group
!
Commissioner!
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment
!
Brief!
In 2018, a new environment and planning act will be implemented, entailing a
decentralisation of responsibilities, and faster, shorter, and more transparent
procedures.
Redesign the permit application service, so that it reflects the spirit of the
new act, and makes it possible for civil servants to behave accordingly.

15. Method
Interviews with civil servants
Analysis of new act
Co-design workshops
Building and testing prototypes
Implementation and evaluation

16. Designs
Standardized agenda & procedure
Rolemap – who can do what, when?
Optimized environment – standing only,
no coffee
Standardized overview of costs
Smart starter application
Standardized to do lists
Online Track and Trace-module

17. Model use
Fly on the wall
Conscience
Problem-definition tool
Inspiration tool

18. Model use
BUT:
Hard to use, especially further on
in design process
!
Behaviour frame had
shortcomings: draws attention
away from systemic factors

19. 19
REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR
REFLEXIVE BEHAVIOR
boundary conditions
i
Communicator interventions aimed at
explicit, controlled behaviour
threats to self regulatory cycle
social influences on self regulatory cycle
steps in the self regulatory cycle
(model based, reflective behaviour)
i
Communicator interventions aimed at
implicit, automatic behaviour
i
Intervening in
automatic
behavior
placing
alternative
cue
attractiveness
and availability
of goal
Reporting
Performance
Feedback
i
disrupting
cue –
behavior link
i
removing
cue
+i
feasible steps
Action planning
i
i
i
Reporting
Performance
Feedback
Norm / Goal
Setting Targets by
communicating
norms and goals
Involving
Social Factors
Intervening in
reflective/controlled
behavior
Social
Norms
Peer Pressure,
SocialValidation
Social
Commitment
Cooperation,
shared goals
Social
Comparison
Social
Inhibition
Competing /
Conflicting Goals
Resistance
Reactance and scepsis
Cognitive dissonance
reduction,
competing norms
Frustration,
motivation declineCompeting /
conflicting
behaviours, habits
Biases,
White lies
Lack of
relevant
information
CUE
Changed
Behavior
Original
Behavior
No change in
Behavior
Goal achieved:
Self-Monitoring
Perception of own
behaviour
Comparison
of goal and
behaviour
Discrepancy?
fitting capability,
motivation
opportunity
Attempting
new behaviour
Disengagement
from goal
Goal
(want to / ought to)
no
no
yes
yes
Persuasive by Design
Behaviour Change Model
Lessons
learned
Model use offers potential for evidence-
based / theory-driven design
!
Disctinction between automatic, reflective
!
Structured way of dealing with known
moderators of behaviour
!
Also in evaluation stage

20. 20
REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR
REFLEXIVE BEHAVIOR
boundary conditions
i
Communicator interventions aimed at
explicit, controlled behaviour
threats to self regulatory cycle
social influences on self regulatory cycle
steps in the self regulatory cycle
(model based, reflective behaviour)
i
Communicator interventions aimed at
implicit, automatic behaviour
i
Intervening in
automatic
behavior
placing
alternative
cue
attractiveness
and availability
of goal
Reporting
Performance
Feedback
i
disrupting
cue –
behavior link
i
removing
cue
+i
feasible steps
Action planning
i
i
i
Reporting
Performance
Feedback
Norm / Goal
Setting Targets by
communicating
norms and goals
Involving
Social Factors
Intervening in
reflective/controlled
behavior
Social
Norms
Peer Pressure,
SocialValidation
Social
Commitment
Cooperation,
shared goals
Social
Comparison
Social
Inhibition
Competing /
Conflicting Goals
Resistance
Reactance and scepsis
Cognitive dissonance
reduction,
competing norms
Frustration,
motivation declineCompeting /
conflicting
behaviours, habits
Biases,
White lies
Lack of
relevant
information
CUE
Changed
Behavior
Original
Behavior
No change in
Behavior
Goal achieved:
Self-Monitoring
Perception of own
behaviour
Comparison
of goal and
behaviour
Discrepancy?
fitting capability,
motivation
opportunity
Attempting
new behaviour
Disengagement
from goal
Goal
(want to / ought to)
no
no
yes
yes
Persuasive by Design
Behaviour Change Model
Lessons
learned
BUT
!
The value of impact depends on expertise
!
Value is greater at the start of the design
process
!
The model is too complex to use by itself
!
Behavioural science ‘lens’ has its limits

21. 21
REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR
REFLEXIVE BEHAVIOR
boundary conditions
i
Communicator interventions aimed at
explicit, controlled behaviour
threats to self regulatory cycle
social influences on self regulatory cycle
steps in the self regulatory cycle
(model based, reflective behaviour)
i
Communicator interventions aimed at
implicit, automatic behaviour
i
Intervening in
automatic
behavior
placing
alternative
cue
attractiveness
and availability
of goal
Reporting
Performance
Feedback
i
disrupting
cue –
behavior link
i
removing
cue
+i
feasible steps
Action planning
i
i
i
Reporting
Performance
Feedback
Norm / Goal
Setting Targets by
communicating
norms and goals
Involving
Social Factors
Intervening in
reflective/controlled
behavior
Social
Norms
Peer Pressure,
SocialValidation
Social
Commitment
Cooperation,
shared goals
Social
Comparison
Social
Inhibition
Competing /
Conflicting Goals
Resistance
Reactance and scepsis
Cognitive dissonance
reduction,
competing norms
Frustration,
motivation declineCompeting /
conflicting
behaviours, habits
Biases,
White lies
Lack of
relevant
information
CUE
Changed
Behavior
Original
Behavior
No change in
Behavior
Goal achieved:
Self-Monitoring
Perception of own
behaviour
Comparison
of goal and
behaviour
Discrepancy?
fitting capability,
motivation
opportunity
Attempting
new behaviour
Disengagement
from goal
Goal
(want to / ought to)
no
no
yes
yes
Persuasive by Design
Behaviour Change Model
Further work
A simpler model
!
Design tools based on the model,
- taking systemic moderators into account
- for use in each phase of the design process

22. New
Behaviour
Goal achieved:
Comparing
goal with
behaviour
fitting ability,
motivation,
opportunity?
Trying out
new behaviour
Goal abandoned:
Target
Behaviour
no
no
discrepancy
perceived
discrepancy
yes
No
behaviour
change
wanting and being able to
doing and repeating
seeing and realising
knowing and feeling
habits and impulses
Cue
Habitual or
impulsive
behaviour
autom
atic behaviour
controlled
behaviour
repeat
until
habit
Knowledge, norms,
attitudes, resistance
perceived control
Persuasive by Design
Behaviour Change Model
internal and external influences
on self-regulatory cycle
social influences, social support, commitment,
peer pressure, cooperation, social comparison,
filters and biases, lack of relevant information,
conflicting behaviour, conflicting norms,
excuses and white lies, frustration
References:
Hermsen, S., & Renes, R.J. (2014). Ontwerpen voor Gedragsverandering. Utrecht, NL: Ucreate.
Hermsen, S., Renes, R. J., & Frost, J. (2014). Persuasive by Design: a model and toolkit for designing evidence-based interventions.
In: Creating the Difference. Proceedings of CHI Sparks 2014, p. 74-77. The Hague, NL: The Hague University of Applied Sciences
Hermsen, S., Mulder, S., Renes, R.J., & Van der Lugt, R. (2015). Using the Persuasive by Design-Model to inform the design of complex
behaviour change concepts: two case studies. Proceedings, European Academy of Design, 11th Conference, Paris 2015.

23. New
Behaviour
Goal achieved:
Comparing
goal with
behaviour
fitting ability,
motivation,
opportunity?
Trying out
new behaviour
Goal abandoned:
Target
Behaviour
no
no
discrepancy
perceived
discrepancy
yes
No
behaviour
change
wanting and being able to
doing and repeating
seeing and realising
knowing and feeling
habits and impulses
Cue
Habitual or
impulsive
behaviour
autom
atic behaviour
controlled
behaviour
repeat
until
habit
Knowledge, norms,
attitudes, resistance
perceived control
Persuasive by Design
Behaviour Change Model
internal and external influences
on self-regulatory cycle
social influences, social support, commitment,
peer pressure, cooperation, social comparison,
filters and biases, lack of relevant information,
conflicting behaviour, conflicting norms,
excuses and white lies, frustration
References:
Hermsen, S., & Renes, R.J. (2014). Ontwerpen voor Gedragsverandering. Utrecht, NL: Ucreate.
Hermsen, S., Renes, R. J., & Frost, J. (2014). Persuasive by Design: a model and toolkit for designing evidence-based interventions.
In: Creating the Difference. Proceedings of CHI Sparks 2014, p. 74-77. The Hague, NL: The Hague University of Applied Sciences
Hermsen, S., Mulder, S., Renes, R.J., & Van der Lugt, R. (2015). Using the Persuasive by Design-Model to inform the design of complex
behaviour change concepts: two case studies. Proceedings, European Academy of Design, 11th Conference, Paris 2015.
More info
http://www.sander-hermsen.nl/?p=1820
!
@sanderhermsen
@TouchpointsHU
!
www.ucreate.nl

24. New
Behaviour
Goal achieved:
Comparing
goal with
behaviour
fitting ability,
motivation,
opportunity?
Trying out
new behaviour
Goal abandoned:
Target
Behaviour
no
no
discrepancy
perceived
discrepancy
yes
No
behaviour
change
wanting and being able to
doing and repeating
seeing and realising
knowing and feeling
habits and impulses
Cue
Habitual or
impulsive
behaviour
autom
atic behaviour
controlled
behaviour
repeat
until
habit
Knowledge, norms,
attitudes, resistance
perceived control
Persuasive by Design
Behaviour Change Model
internal and external influences
on self-regulatory cycle
social influences, social support, commitment,
peer pressure, cooperation, social comparison,
filters and biases, lack of relevant information,
conflicting behaviour, conflicting norms,
excuses and white lies, frustration
References:
Hermsen, S., & Renes, R.J. (2014). Ontwerpen voor Gedragsverandering. Utrecht, NL: Ucreate.
Hermsen, S., Renes, R. J., & Frost, J. (2014). Persuasive by Design: a model and toolkit for designing evidence-based interventions.
In: Creating the Difference. Proceedings of CHI Sparks 2014, p. 74-77. The Hague, NL: The Hague University of Applied Sciences
Hermsen, S., Mulder, S., Renes, R.J., & Van der Lugt, R. (2015). Using the Persuasive by Design-Model to inform the design of complex
behaviour change concepts: two case studies. Proceedings, European Academy of Design, 11th Conference, Paris 2015.
More info
http://www.sander-hermsen.nl/?p=1820
!
@sanderhermsen
@TouchpointsHU
!
www.ucreate.nl
Thank you.